Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

DEATH OF DR. ROBERT JACKSON

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe all the citizens of Ontario are aware, and I am sure deeply saddened to learn, of the death yesterday of Dr. Robert W. B. Jackson in a tragic motor vehicle accident in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Dr. Jackson was recognized as one of Canada’s outstanding educators, He sewed as the first director of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education from 1965 to 1975 and was largely responsible for establishing that institution as an educational facility with international acclaim. Upon retirement from the institute, Dr. Jackson moved to Halifax to become the senior research associate at the Atlantic Institute of Education.

In August 1977 Dr. Jackson was appointed by my predecessor as a one-man commission to study the effects and the implications of declining school enrolments in Ontario. The scope of that inquiry by the commission was the most comprehensive on the subject of declining enrolment ever undertaken anywhere on this continent. Over a 15-month period Dr. Jackson assembled a group of eminent Canadian researchers, who produced a large volume of research material on this topic. That material is being widely used by educators in Ontario faced with the problems of declining enrolment. I should like the House to know that requests for research reports have been received from many other provinces and from several other countries as well.

On behalf of the government of the province of Ontario I should like to extend our sincere sympathy and our condolences to Dr. Jackson’s family, his widow Heather and his two sons. I should like the members of the House to know that the funeral service for Dr. Jackson will be held tomorrow in Halifax, but at the same time in Toronto there will be a memorial service held at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education auditorium, 252 Bloor Street West, at 2 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: On behalf of my party I would simply like to express our feelings of deep sympathy and regret to the family of Dr. Jackson, who died yesterday in a tragic accident in the Halifax area. Dr. Jackson has provided to this province, and I believe also to this country, long service in the area of education and a great deal of leadership.

While members of this House know we had some reservations about parts of the recent report he was preparing for the government, we felt the final document he prepared on the area of declining enrolments, which reflected his lifetime of experience in the area of education, had excellent recommendations to make. We would only wish that, as a tribute to his contribution to education, the government had been prepared to put the recommendations of that report into practice.

I want to join with the Minister of Education in expressing our regret. We would have hoped that Dr. Jackson could have continued to make a contribution as the elder statesman of education in this province and not had his life cut short in such a tragic way.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a word at this time on behalf of the official opposition -- a word of condolence to the family of the late Dr. Jackson, and a word to indicate how much the citizens of Ontario have to appreciate people who devote themselves to public causes and who take on, even at later stages in their lives when they could well decide simply to enjoy leisure time, very difficult and onerous duties in the public interest. Dr. Jackson was such a person. In that regard we certainly owe a lot to the late gentleman and certainly want to give our sincere condolences to the family.

TRAINING SCHOOL CLOSURES

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable members will recall that in February 1978 I announced a three-phase plan to reduce the number of provincial training schools to three or four and to provide alternative forms of treatment in the community for children who are wards of the juvenile corrections system. Under the plan only those who are a danger to themselves or to others and require special care will he placed in a training school.

Research has questioned the necessity of institutionalization for many juvenile delinquents. Alternative types of community care have shown positive results for this type of child. At the same time, the populations of our training schools have been dropping because of an overall decrease in the numbers of children in the 12-to-16 age group, the use of community group homes, and shorter and fewer committals to training schools by juvenile-court judges.

The first changes affecting training schools took place when Elmcrest School in Toronto was closed in 1973 and Grandview School in Cambridge was closed in 1976. Last year Hillcrest Training School in Guelph was closed. The wards of the training school in Hagersville were transferred to more modem facilities at the Sprucedale School in Simcoe.

Even with last year’s closing, the training-school system has more room for wards than can be justified by reason of either program or budget. The maximum capacity of all our existing training schools is approximately 850. Under present conditions only about 450 wards are in residence at peak periods of the year. Operating any type of institution below capacity is clearly not an effective use of either financial or staff resources for ensuring the most appropriate type of care for these children.

Today, therefore, officials of my ministry are meeting with employees of the Kawartha Lakes School in Lindsay and Pine Ridge School in Bowmanville, to announce that those institutions will be closing as training schools later this year. The Lindsay school will close July 31; the Bowmanville school will close October 31.

Under the new policy for care and treatment of juvenile offenders I announced last year, we still require a training school for each of our province’s major regions. The opening of Sprucedale in Simcoe ensured adequate facilities for western Ontario. Cecil Facer School in Sudbury is the only training school in the north and will continue to serve that region. In eastern Ontario we have four training schools. In addition to the two which will close we have Brookside School in Cobourg and Champlain School in Alfred near Ottawa.

We chose Pine Ridge and Kawartha Lakes for closure because both schools are felt to be unsuitable for use in our overall plan for juveniles found to be delinquent.

I would like to reassure the honourable members concerning provisions made for the employees and wards of the Kawartha Lakes and Pine Ridge schools.

The two employee unions concerned, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Federation of Provincial School Authority Teachers, have been advised of the changes. Senior officials of my ministry are informing the staff of both schools and community leaders of our decision and our reasons today.

Classified civil servants at both Kawartha Lakes and Pine Ridge will be offered other jobs within the ministry and government which utilize their skills and experience. There are sufficient vacancies within the government to offer alternative positions to these employees.

Children placed in training schools stay an average of five months. This means that most children in Pine Ridge will have graduated by October 31. Many will also have left Kawartha Lakes by July 31. In the six remaining schools we have ample space for any remaining wards.

A comprehensive review of Champlain School in Alfred is under way and we hope to develop a program there that will benefit a wider range of children than are presently being sewed. It is our intention to develop a broader use for this school with its 163 acres of land and buildings.

A special school, Project DARE in South River, will be maintained, but not as a training school. Its unique Outward Bound program will be made available to a wider range of juveniles, not only training school wards.

I know concerns have been expressed that in reducing the capacity of the training school system, the province will be returning difficult-to-manage children to communities that may not be fully prepared to deal with them. We will continue to place children in the community only when and where there is appropriate care for them. The closures I have announced today will allow us to reallocate funds to develop new alternative programs in the community.

Group homes for juvenile offenders have been a feature of the correctional system for several years. We will continue to develop other kinds of community programs, including specialized foster care and selective intervention, which give individual support to wards who are able to live in the community.

During the planning stage of these closures, we asked the federal government and all other Ontario ministries if they could use any of the training school facilities for other purposes. While none was in a position to do so, I sincerely hope that by making our plans public today, we can more easily approach business, industry, municipalities and private groups to find uses for lands and buildings in Lindsay and Bowmanville. Residents of both of these communities have proved to be excellent hosts to our training schools over the years. We plan to work actively with these communities and other ministries to develop new job opportunities.

Mr. Mancini: That’s why you’re taking them away?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Finally, I would like to stress that the changes I have announced today -- the closing of two training schools, the new roles for two others, the more efficient use of the remaining schools and the development of more community resources -- are all part of our long-term program to make better use of the funds at our disposal and to provide improved types of care and rehabilitation for delinquent juveniles in our province.

GO TRANSIT TICKETING FACILITIES

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to advise the House today that the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, which administers GO Transit, is about to embark on a program to assume the operation of GO Transit ticketing facilities with its own staff, phasing out the existing contractor, Canadian National Railways, over a two-year period.

The phasing-out procedure has been adopted following my discussions with my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), Cliff Pilkey, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, and representatives of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers. It was agreed that the changeover would minimize the effect on the 80 CN staff involved.

In a subsequent meeting I had with Mr. A. R. Williams, CN vice-president of the Great Lakes region, I was assured that CN will have little difficulty reassigning existing staff within the company during the transitional period; and further, CN will do everything in its power to minimize any possible adverse effects on its employees.

The change in staffing procedures will enable TATOA to unify GO Transit’s complex ticketing function throughout the entire area served by the system.

ORGANIZED CRIME

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature the contents of a letter I have received signed by some 52 members of the Italian-Canadian community which was prompted by the recent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation production titled Connections. This letter is signed by 52 people, as I mentioned, including labourers and professionals, businessmen and union leaders, teachers and students.

I will read an excerpt from the letter and then table it. I would also like to deal briefly with some matters raised here on April 9 by the members for Downsview (Mr. di Santo), for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella) and for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid).

The letter, briefly, reads as follows:

“This program has improperly created the impression among the viewing public that the Italian-Canadian community is riddled with members associated with organized crime. It is a well-known fact that presently and historically our community is, and has been, as law abiding as any other in this province.

“Our greatest concern is the adverse psychological and social effects which this program has had on our children who, we hope, will be among the future leaders of our country. The unspoken reality is that innocent children are continually being taunted simply because of their cultural heritage.

“We certainly lend our support to the efforts of any media source in their attempt to surface these kinds of issues and inform all citizens about criminal activities in any community. However, the CBC must recognize the effect of journalism which, in our opinion, has created an image that the Italian-Canadian community as a group condones elements of crime. Our community, like all other communities, assists in and wholeheartedly supports the enforcement of law and order for the well-being of all citizens.

“Our comments are couched in words of disappointment and sorrow rather than anger, since a community of approximately 600,000, ranging from the professional to the labourer, from the child to the elderly, and who have had and will continue to contribute, now have been maligned by being cast among the handful shown by the CBC.”

I have great sympathy with the sentiments that are contained in this letter. There, of course, should be no doubt about the truly phenomenal contributions that Canadians of Italian origin have made to this province. The evidence is all around us, be it social, cultural, charitable or political.

[2:15]

As someone born and raised in Metropolitan Toronto, I personally have experienced how much our community and our lifestyle has benefited by our Italian-Canadian citizens.

As Attorney General and Solicitor General I am in regular contact with law enforcement officials and I have no hesitation in stating once again that the Italian-Canadian community is as law abiding as any other community in the province.

Members asked last week whether I would make a statement on the status of our continuing law enforcement efforts against organized crime as a result of the CBC program.

I want to emphasize that the key individuals identified on the program in this jurisdiction have been convicted and imprisoned or are now before the courts on a variety of charges. Unfortunately, the program made little or no mention of this fact and because of that viewers may have been left with an inaccurate impression of the activities of the police agencies and the administration of justice.

Several years ago the three major police forces involved in the fight against organized crime -- the Ontario Provincial Police, the Metropolitan Toronto police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police -- formed a tri-force task force. In early 1977, I directed that senior members of my ministry be available to advise the task force on a continuing basis.

As a result, senior officials of the crown law office are consulted by and advise members of the task force at regular intervals in the course of every major investigation. In addition, there are regular meetings and exchanges of intelligence information that have enabled us to develop expertise in both the investigation and prosecution of organized criminal activities. Counsel in the crown law office have also participated in intensive courses dealing with the prosecution of organized crime at Cornell University.

Both the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Solicitor General are, of course, committed to this effort. The government stands ready to provide additional financial assistance to the police for use in this regard as we did in 1977 when an extra $1.25 million was allotted to the OPP.

Through this concerted effort charges have been laid against approximately 250 persons involved in organized criminal activities in the past two years. This, as I have already mentioned, includes most of the individuals identified on the CBC program.

Among the charges are several involving complex conspiracies. Others involve loansharking extortion, counterfeiting, gambling, burglary, theft, forgery, fraud and other criminal rackets. These prosecutions are as a result of intensive investigation into patterns of criminal activity that are planned and organized by persons acting in concert, to paraphrase the law-enforcement definition of organized crime.

As I have said on previous occasions, it is a significant fact that the number of convictions of organized-crime members brought about as a result of the tri-force effort has exceeded that of any other comparable jurisdiction in North America during the period the task force has been in operation.

It is the view of the police and counsel in the crown law office criminal that the fight against organized crime can most effectively be waged by established police methods; that is, gathering evidence on which to secure convictions in court. It is the police view -- and I share it -- that a public inquiry at this time would interfere with a number of investigations under way and with the cases currently before the courts, and would simply not be as effective as the task-force approach.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REED PAPER COMPANY

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott), who is not here. But I also have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources; I see him arriving now.

Could the minister comment on the allegations regarding the cut of Reed Limited? Could the minister explain whether in fact it’s true that in the southern portion of Reed’s timber rights they have exceeded the annual allowable cut by some 50 per cent? Could he comment on whether this represents good forestry practice?

If he wishes to deny this report would he be good enough to give us some explanation for how this report arose and to bring us up to date on the actual figures with regard to the allowable cut in the southern portion of Reed’s timber limits?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I really don’t know how the report was put over the air -- as I understand it, in Thunder Bay by CBQ, I believe it was --

Mr. Foulds: It was from your ministry’s figures. It is from figures supplied by your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That’s right, but the figures they used were not the figures that were supplied by our ministry.

In the southern working circle, there are two areas that Reed has for a period of, I think, some 20 or 25 years. The actual cut from the spruce working group is less than the approved allowable cut over the last five years. In the northern working circle, the actual cut from the spruce working group has been slightly higher than the approved allowable cut over the last 15 years.

Reed has advised us that since 1969 the company has spent approximately $4.5 million on road and bridge construction and maintenance in the northern working circle to distribute its cutting operation more properly. This will result in the balancing of the spruce allowable cut over both working circles, which is a situation totally acceptable to the ministry.

I might add that the allowable cut is generally based over a period. Quite often companies will exceed it in one year and be well below in the following year, for a variety of reasons -- weather, conditions in the mill, conditions in the market, a variety of things. As I understand it, Reed has a volume agreement. It’s based on a 20-year period, so there can be variations from year to year and from one five-year period to another.

It’s difficult to understand how the information originally supplied by the Dryden office of the ministry in response to a query from Thunder Bay came out over the air in the form it did.

I might say one other thing. White spruce, which is what I believe they were talking about, comprises only 0.6 per cent -- six tenths of one per cent -- of the total allowable cut of Reed. It’s considered to be an incidental species because the big cut there is black spruce and jackpine.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of a supplementary, would the minister be good enough to supply the House the figures for the annual allowable cut and for the actual cut for the various species in the various timber limits that Reed has had, so that we can judge for ourselves what the situation has been over the years?

I take it that the minister is saying that the annual cut is a kind of mean around which fluctuations are permissible. I’m sure the minister wouldn’t like us to believe that the whole cut of a 20-year supply could be cut in one year, because of the implications for regrowth. Could the minister, therefore, tell us what kinds of variations are permissible around the annual cut as a mean figure, and what the figure has been this particular year?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’ll be delighted to do that, Mr. Speaker. I would say that in the normal course of events we don’t give yearly figures.

Ms. Gigantes: Who says they are going to be around in 20 years?

Hon. Mr. Auld: We will be delighted to give the allowable cut but not the actual cut -- for a variety of reasons, as far as the companies are concerned; competitive conditions, negotiations, a variety of things.

I can give the member the cut over the period and I will give him the allowable cut each year, and the total to date, but I would prefer not to give a breakdown for each year in the last two or three years and the current year because, as I say, this information is of advantage to one’s competitors, I’m told.

Ms. Gigantes: Oh, come on.

An hon. member: Give them to him for all of them.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I realize that some of the honourable members over there don’t believe in competition, but there is some.

Mr. Wildman: Give it to us.

Mr. S. Smith: It belongs to the people.

Hon. Mr. Auld: And I think that it is important that we recognize that. I will try to give the member all the information that is available and, in fact, if it is insufficient we will have another go at it.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us how many other companies are engaged in the practice outlined in the radio story yesterday, allowed and abetted by the ministry, of cutting on a global-lease basis? In other words, can he tell us how many other companies are engaged in overcutting certain parts of theft limits or leases and undercutting in other areas? Does he not think it is time for the ministry to abandon its nine-year-old global-lease cutting policy and adhere strictly to cutting the allowable cut, with minor variations, in the individual tracts as they were leased by the companies?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I haven’t seen a transcript of the broadcast so I’m not sure what companies were involved, but I will endeavour to get the information. I would point out to the member that the DREE agreement that the province and the federal government have entered into for northern Ontario for, amongst other things, access roads in the forest areas -- some $60 million -- is to get at over-mature lumber. So there will be, I would assume, some additional cutting going on to harvest that fibre before it is too late.

Mr. S. Smith: If I may ask a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: That’s your second final.

Mr. S. Smith: It was final for me.

Would the minister reconsider his statement that he might withhold from us the annual cut of crown timber by various companies in the light of the fact that these are crown resources and that if a company were to leave, for instance, its entire cut to the end of its lease, this would have very important implications for reforestation, among other things, such as the possibility of giving them new leases if they’ve mismanaged the first one?

Would the minister recognize that in fact the companies announce their production each year, anyway --

Mr. Martel: That’s two.

Mr. S. Smith: -- which is really cut under a different name? Would he, therefore, provide the annual figures --

Mr. Martel: Three.

Mr. S. Smith: -- and allow us to draw our own conclusions in this House as to whether proper forestry practices are in vogue with regard to the Reed paper company?

Mr. Martel: That was three questions.

Hon. Mr. Add: Mr. Speaker, I will give the honourable member as much information as I can, and if there is some problem I will be in touch with him before I give the final figures.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell us whether or not, under the terms of the DREE agreement for additional forest roads in which Ontario is participating, one of the terms of giving funds to companies to build those additional roads will be a far stricter adherence to cutting less in the limits that are now accessible and nearing the overcutting stage; in other words, that we will develop the northern parts that have been leased and have not been cut because of inadequate roads, in order to use the mature timber that is there?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would say this: The agreements will be implemented in the way which will achieve the best forest practice.

Mr. S. Smith: I had a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott). I was told he’d be here, but I guess he is delayed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He’ll be here.

HYDRO URANIUM CONTRACTS

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll ask a question then of the Minister of Energy. Is there an agreement between Shell Canada and Ontario Hydro concerning uranium exploration in Ontario? Can the minister tell us how much has been spent by either party for exploration for uranium in this province? Can he tell us whether there is some exclusivity in the exploratory rights granted under this contract and whether the costs and benefits are shared equally by Shell Canada and Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I can’t say at the moment whether or not there is such an agreement. I have an idea that Hydro has agreements with a number of possible suppliers of various kinds of materials, such as coal in the United States. I will get that information for the member and provide it on Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, has the minister received complaints, as we have, that persons have been prohibited from contracting with Ontario Hydro to explore for uranium in Ontario because of this agreement with Shell, specifically in the Elliot Lake area? Is the minister not concerned that Ontarians are prevented from exploring for uranium in their own province because they haven’t reached some agreement with some multinational company, namely Shell? Has he received complaints, as we have, with regard to this?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have received no complaints. Who would be prohibiting companies from exploring?

Mr. Mancini: We’re supposed to ask the questions.

An hon. member: Shell.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary and, I guess, by way of an answer to the minister, it would appear that Ontario Hydro is prohibited --

Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the minister aware -- But he asked me the question, after all.

Mr. Breithaupt: Obviously he wasn’t aware of it.

Mr. S. Smith: He’s getting used to what the situation will be some year or two hence.

Mr. Breithaupt: He has to be a little crisper.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the minister aware that Hydro appears to have been prevented from entering an agreement with a particular consulting geologist on the basis that Hydro is already in an agreement with Shell which would appear to give Shell exclusive rights to explore in the Elliot Lake area and other places? Can he tell us what has been spent and how these benefits have been divided and what he thinks of an agreement where multinationals can prevent Ontario people from exploring for uranium in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Auld: First I should clarify something. It is the Ministry of Natural Resources Which issues licences to explore and stake claims and so on. Hydro has no authority in that field. However, I’ll find out exactly what agreement Shell and Hydro have and what Hydro may have with other companies and I will report.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East with a final supplementary.

Ms. Gigantes: Can I ask the minister if he understands the arrangement of Ontario Hydro to enter into co-operation with companies for exploration of uranium to be an indication that Ontario Hydro is thinking of trying to get out of its existing contracts which will provide an oversupply of uranium for planned nuclear plants?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would say, assuming that Hydro has these agreements, the opposite would be the case. Hydro is attempting to ensure it will have a long-term supply of uranium.

Ms. Gigantes: They already have it.

[Later (3:13):]

Hon. Mr. Auld: Earlier this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) asked me a question about Hydro and an agreement with Shell Canada. I’ve come across some information about it which I thought I should give him today.

As part of the program to improve security of supply for its long-term nuclear program, Ontario Hydro is providing financial support for selected uranium exploration projects. Late in 1975, Hydro entered two exploratory ventures, one with Shell Canada Limited and one with Amok Limited. The former involves a five-year program of exploration. Work has been carried out in northern Ontario, the Northwest Territories, Labrador, Quebec and British Columbia. The Amok program is a continuation of work already done by the company on its property near Cluff Lake in Saskatchewan which has led to the discovery of uranium deposits on another part of the property.

In 1977, Hydro acquired a 15 per cent interest in uranium explorations being carried out by Norcen Energy Resources Limited in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia.

Mr. di Santo: Statements, statements, statements.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Through this venture, Hydro has an interest in the Blizzard uranium deposit in the Kelowna area of BC, where mining development is planned, subject to the outcome of a board of inquiry into uranium mining in that province.

Mr. di Santo: Time, time.

Hon. Mr. Auld: In 1978, Hydro acquired a 20 per cent interest in a uranium exploration program being carried out in New Brunswick by Canadian Nickel Company, which I believe is an Inco subsidiary.

Ms. Gigantes: Is there an excess profit tax on that?

[Reverting (2:35):]

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Can the Minister of Health confirm that the government’s present intention is to cut more than 4,000 hospital beds in Ontario over the course of the next two and a half years as a result of the cutback policy which the minister has decreed? Can the minister say what the medical justifications are for such a sudden reduction in beds in Ontario and what studies or preparatory work was done before the ministry reached that decision?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can confirm to the honourable member that what we are planning, and what is becoming more and more apparent in most areas of the province, is to see first of all a recognition of the need for more chronic- and long-term care beds. Wherever possible, we plan to see those met out of conversion to those uses of beds which, while called acute-care beds, are actually being used for that purpose, in order that new programs will be established or existing ones expanded.

I think at this point it would be quite irresponsible to speculate on 4,000 beds closing. I think the change in terms of numbers will be minimal over the coming years, but the uses will certainly change. This is what I have been saying all along when I talk about the health-care system in transition -- that we have to see the system change, preferably first within our resources, to meet our changing needs.

Mr. Wildman: Not in transition, in limbo.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact Ontario already has the lowest proportion of hospital beds to population of any province in Canada, and in view of the fact the minister is proposing to reduce the number of active-treatment beds from what was estimated at 4.63 beds per thousand a year ago to 3.5 beds per thousand in southern Ontario by 1981, can the minister say whether that decision was motivated purely by budgetary grounds, as appears to be the case? If not, what is the medical justification which the ministry went through before deciding that it was going to impose those hospital cutbacks on many communities where hospital treatment available is already in short supply?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Comparisons with other jurisdictions can be sometimes quite difficult inasmuch as one doesn’t always use the same base. I would invite the member to look at the statement I made on February 7, 1978, at which time I announced the budget for hospitals for 1978 and indicated what the budget figures would likely look like for 1979. I also announced the change in the active-treatment bed planning guideline.

I went on to say that the guidelines for chronic- and extended-care beds were being retained as the minimum level. Where needs above those levels were identified, the government would move, over time, to see that those needs were met.

In particular I would draw to the member’s attention his own city. There the local health council, the overall health planning body for that region, examined the need for chronic-care beds and made a recommendation to me that we make provision for 150 more chronic-care beds with the ability to expand to 200 chronic-care beds for the future.

As a result of that, even while the new Ottawa health sciences centre general hospital is under construction, even while the new rehab unit at Royal Ottawa is going ahead and while the new forensic unit at Royal Ottawa is going ahead, we have approved the conversion of the “old” Ottawa General to provide for, initially, as soon as it is renovated, 150 chronic-care beds with a capacity for 200 eventually.

That kind of thing is going on all over the province. It is perhaps one of the better examples of what I have been talking about with the health-care system in transition. We are recognizing that many beds we presently call acute-care beds have to be reordered in order that proper chronic-care programs -- this is what I am concerned about -- that chronic-care patients who need the chronic-care program are going to get it and not be lost, as it were, in the shuffle of a much larger acute care ward.

Mr. Cooke: Isn’t the real problem in this transition that the minister has not bothered to put the alternatives in place, such as chronic home care, before he decided to close many of the active-treatment beds and make the switch to chronic beds? Wouldn’t it have been better planning and make more sense if some of those alternatives would have been put in place first and more nursing-home beds provided? Further, since the minister says he believes in decentralizing decision-making in this province in health care, wouldn’t it have made more sense for the minister to allow the district health councils in the various communities to determine what the proper number of active-treatment beds would be for their community, rather than have the bureaucrats here in Toronto and the minister making the decision strictly on budgetary grounds?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, I think if the honourable member thinks one can run something the size of the Ministry of Health, which spends over $11 million a day, without having some kind of standards by which to plan, then he’s misleading himself and the House really.

Mr. Swart: He can but you can’t.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You can say that; I won’t say that.

Mr. Renwick: Why not cut the red tape?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We’ve got to have some kind of standards and some kind of benchmark to plan by. One of the points that bears repeating is that when we talk about moving over three years -- not over one year because that kind of change in one year would be too traumatic -- to 3.5 active-treatment beds per thousand in the south and four in the north --

Mr. Warner: You should be replaced by a computer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- we’re talking about moving towards the day when that number of beds will be available purely for active-treatment purposes.

Mr. Wildman: What is the justification for that remark?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In the process we are moving to identify what numbers of beds are required for chronic long-term care and extended care and to put the wheels in motion to address those needs as well. In planning for the health-care system we can’t say, “All right, today we’ll fix it all up, that will be it, and we won’t have to touch it again.” It is an ongoing process obviously.

Mr. Swart: It should have been finalized years ago.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member cannot -- and I think this is a mistake which is made by many so often that I’m not being critical of him -- look at a chronic home-care program as something which can replace every person who is now, ever was, or ever will be a chronic- or extended-care patient. It will address the needs of a number of them. It will help to keep people out of those facilities longer and to maintain their independence in their own home. It will help perhaps to get some of them out sooner. But we cannot equate one with the other because we are always going to need institutional services for some people.

Mr. Foulds: Bring back Matt Dymond.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I would say to the minister, Mr. Speaker, that I find it hard to stomach --

Mr. Speaker: Then ask the minister then.

Mr. Cassidy: -- today a proposal for 200 chronic beds which was promised by this government in 1975, before he even became the Minister of Health. I want to say to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Ask a question please.

Mr. Havrot: Never mind grandstanding.

Mr. Cassidy: My question is can the minister explain why on March 27 he told this House: “We have set standards for the province which compare well with any jurisdiction which one chooses to bring forward in Canada or in North America,” when in fact the latest figures available at that time indicated that the number of hospital beds per thousand on average across Canada was 5.76; that Ontario already had a full one hospital bed per thousand less than the rest of the country; and that the minister’s new standards are now going to reduce that to a point where we would have more than two beds per thousand less than the rest of the country?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Cassidy: The question is --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Let the minister explain.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, let him explain.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’ll take a look at the member’s figures, but if memory serves me correctly what he is in fact quoting for the other provinces is all beds -- chronic, extended care, psychiatric and acute care. What he is quoting for Ontario is just acute care. He has his figures mixed up, and I’ll confirm that for him.

Mr. Cassidy: Those figures came from --

Mr. Foulds: The College of Physicians and Surgeons. They must be true.

Mr. Cassidy: -- from the Ontario Hospital Association. If the minister wants to take them on, that’s fine.

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Education who is responsible, among other things, for apprenticeship programs, at least until the Minister of Manpower takes on his new responsibilities. Can the minister explain why, when we had 319,000 people out of work in Ontario in March and when we had 145,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 out of work, the government of Ontario was advertising in the daily newspaper, The Sun, in London, England, for qualified and experienced tradespersons to work in the GM transmission plant in Windsor?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have no knowledge at all that the government of Ontario was advertising for anything in any newspaper in London, England.

Mr. di Santo: You were in China. That’s why.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the government of Ontario’s selective placement service was advertising in The Sun for industrial pipefitters, electricians, machine fitters, millwrights and tool and die makers to go and work in the GM transmission plant in Windsor, can the minister explain why we are not training people to fill these positions here in Ontario?

[2:45]

Why, in particular between April of last year and February of this year, did the number of pipefitters apprenticing in Ontario fall from 610 to 606; why did the number of industrial electricians apprenticing fall by close to 200; why did the number of millwrights, now being sought in London, England, to apprentice here in Ontario, fall from 349 to 131? Why is it that the only sector showing an increase in apprenticeships is tool and diemaking in the areas I have cited? When will this government begin to ensure that Ontario men and women can train for these skilled trades that are so badly needed in Windsor and throughout the province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed taken, I think, significant steps to increase the number of available training positions for individuals within the machine-tool trades specifically. However I would remind the honourable members opposite that while the places for training are there, it is not this government’s position that we go out and coerce people into the training programs. The retraining is available through the AOTA agreement with the federal government. The places are there and available to young people who wish retraining in this province. If they do not take them up, we cannot, unfortunately, coerce them into doing so.

Mr. Sweeney: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What steps is the ministry taking to update the counselling or guidance programs in the secondary schools of this province so that students can be made much more aware of potential opportunities and so that they will be given more encouragement? We are not asking that they be coerced but they could be encouraged to consider seriously these areas of employment. What updating is taking place?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of very real concern. The information in the process of being developed will be distributed not only to secondary schools but to parents and to young people both inside and outside the secondary school system. It will be available very shortly for perusal by all members of this House.

Mr. Swart: After 34 years of Tory government.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We have embarked on a very active campaign of public information in an attempt to bring about the important and absolutely necessary change in public attitudes regarding the acquisition of such skills as appropriate career choices for our young people. That program is actively in production right at the moment and should be available very shortly.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain why the Ontario government is advertising on behalf of General Motors of Canada? Couldn’t they do that little task themselves?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier I had no knowledge that the government of Ontario was advertising at all. I shall be pleased to investigate this matter and to inform the House. I have not seen it.

Mr. Breaugh: It is coming over.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Thank you very much.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Would the minister look bath to the program set up during the Second World War when they used vocational schools throughout Ontario for development of the various types of skills needed for the war effort? We could look back at the past. I think we could resolve part of our problems by the full use of these schools. At that time they used them from right after regular school until eight o’clock the next morning.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, we have most certainly been aware of the traditional kinds of programs developed in other jurisdictions as well as in Ontario. I am happy to be reminded again of the program established during the Second World War in the vocational schools. We feel there is a great need for increased utilization of those facilities that are available to us now, as well as increased co-ordination of all the programs available in Ontario. That’s precisely the route we are attempting to follow at this point.

GREAT LAKES POLLUTION

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Does the minister agree with the Great Lakes pollution assessment by the American head of the International Joint Commission supported by the past Canadian chairman, Maxwell Cohen, in which they said such things as, “We may have to write off the Great Lakes, particularly Lakes Erie and Ontario, as sources of fish and drinking water unless measures are taken by governments to control the input of toxic waste,” and, “We have a time bomb on our hands and it is up to government to stop it from going off”?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He denied that in a later speech.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, to answer that yes or no.

An hon. member: You’ve never answered a question yet.

Mr. McClellan: Let Stephenson answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I do not disagree that we must be very careful, and to have someone bring this so forcefully to the attention of people will I think do nothing but good for those of us who are concerned about the environment. On that note I welcome the article.

I am not so pessimistic as to believe that the Great Lakes must be written off. I would, however, go so far as to say -- and I probably agree with the member -- that unless all of us become --

Mr. T. P. Reid: There is government accounting.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- concerned and do something about it -- and that means more than just government, that means all of us as concerned citizens -- we do have a potential serious problem of great magnitude.

So I guess I would take the public position that I welcome that kind of flag-waving for those of us who are concerned about the environment and would join with those who say we -- if it is more than just government -- must be doing something about it.

Ms. Gigantes: Some of us do more about it than others.

Mrs. Campbell: And wave the flag, too.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the government is doing a fair amount; I think the things we proposed last fall and the deadlines we placed for January 1 are significant and will be effective. So I guess I am somewhat supportive, yet I don’t go quite as far as that gentleman did, or indeed the headline might suggest.

Mr. Warner: We will use the fish for thermometers.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask, what has the minister and the ministry done in carrying out the toxic substances control program specified in the new Great Lakes water quality agreement that went into effect some five months ago? In other words, what are the minister’s plans, what are his programs with respect to that particular agreement?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think there are many plans. Some of them are to find better sites; some of them are to find better methods of controlling toxic waste.

Part of it, I think, has already been accomplished. I am not persuaded that the waybill system, improved as it is, has still reached its ultimate in sophistication to do the job it should do. We will be making further amendments to our waybill classification system.

I think when I put that to the House I said better we do something today and get it started than to wait until it is perfect. We now see some areas where we think there could be some improvements and in the not too distant future the honourable member will find us making changes in the waybill classification system.

I think we have to do a more constructive job with the private sector in the testing of wastes as they are accepted. I think in the private sector we are short of adequate control of materials when they come into their possession. Those are the kinds of things that will be done this year that I think in many ways will address the problem the International Joint Commission was trying to bring to the attention of the people of Ontario. Without that help on their part, I think it will appear as though we are putting something onto the private sector, onto society, that they may not want.

I am sure, knowing of the honourable member’s interest -- I hope he knows of mine in this regard -- we welcome that kind of bringing to public attention of the importance of government’s doing something, but in conjunction with the private sector and the individual citizen.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister when is he going to institute mandatory registration of all hazardous chemicals used by industry so that he can see whether they are providing adequate methods of disposal of any waste from them and whether they are testing them before they put them into manufacturing processes?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can give the honourable member a specific date on that. We have attempted to address that issue in meetings with sister ministries because I think we have arrived at the point in time in our society when if you are going to produce a chemical you should be responsible not only for its use but any side effects it might have and its after-use care. I do not disagree with that at all.

Ms. Gigantes: What about environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I do not think it necessarily should fall within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment for Ontario. I think the honourable member would agree that if we are going to that degree of control, there is significant involvement for the federal government.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, does the minister intend more strict enforcement as it applies to industry with regard to the regulations and acts that are now in place? Secondly, is the minister intending to put the 2.5 phosphorus limit on dishwashing and commercial detergent to accord with the limit on household detergent?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The answer to the first portion of the question is yes, we will. I only wish I were in a practical position to do it today. I wish we had, not only in this province but in all 10 provinces, sufficient sites for the treatment of our waste. The fact is, not only Ontario, but many places --

Mr. Kerrio: Wishbones instead of backbone.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- and certainly the states to the south, are not in a position to control to the degree I think we should. We have to have those facilities in place.

We have, as the honourable member knows, a significant study contract with a firm to find those sites. That is progressing very nicely. That was the first step. Last fall, we tried to set out step-by-step programs that will allow us to be more stringent than we are today, but I cannot be stringent when I do not have, nor does the rest of society have, some of the necessary facilities to treat those wastes. We are trying as quickly as we can to get those facilities in place. Once they are is the time to get more stringent and we will.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of the statement by Dr. Arthur Porter in his interim report for the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning that the implementation of recommendations by the International Joint Commission for control of radiation levels in the Great Lakes would seriously affect the development of the nuclear program in Ontario? Does he not think that is a good reason to have an environmental assessment of Darlington?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I fail to understand that as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the other ministry.

ELECTION EXPENSES

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question to the Attorney General. Why has the government procrastinated so long in responding to the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses with regard to amendments to the Election Finances Reform Act? Quite apart from his past procrastination, is it the government’s intention to move in implementing those reforms, 17 of which date as far back as the 1976 report, and if so, when?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I do not concede we have procrastinated at all.

Mr. MacDonald: Three years.

Mr. Warner: That is your normal way.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would be happy to review the specific proposed amendment. We will be introducing an amendment in relation to the limitation period, that is clear. There has been some debate over the responsibility for the initiating of charges and we have made it very clear that in our view that is primarily their function as the investigative agency. I will be quite happy to review any other amendments that may have been suggested and report back to the honourable member.

Mr. Warner: When?

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there are over 20 recommendations; 17 of them date from 1976, three years ago, with requests for amendment. Would the minister, when he reports back, indicate why he is picking only two and leaving the other 20 to be neglected still further?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I said we will report back.

[3:00]

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the chairman of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses has also had the responsibility of being Attorney General over a considerable period of time, and it is his view that the Attorney General does have the responsibility to prosecute charges, would not the Attorney General feel he might get an impartial opinion on this matter, since it seems quite reasonable that the chief law officer of the crown might very well implement the charges recommended by the commission?

Would the Attorney General comment on the fact that one of the charges pending would be against a Conservative who had defaulted on the requirements of the act?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member has demonstrated by his question the enormous confusion that exists in some people’s minds, obviously including his own, in relation to the responsibility of the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The member has lumped two issues that are of fundamental importance and difference; that is, who initiates the prosecution and who prosecutes it. I want to make it very clear that there has been no issue as to who prosecutes it. We made it very clear that, once the charge is initiated, we will prosecute the charge.

Mr. Nixon: The former Attorney General says you should initiate it.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: With respect to the former Attorney General, I think perhaps he misconstrues what the role of the Ministry of the Attorney General is in this respect.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that it is important to point out that the Ministry of the Attorney General is not an investigative agency, and that the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses is properly constituted to investigate any possible breaches of the Election Finances Reform Act and to initiate any charges. Indeed, a private citizen can initiate a charge, except that the legislation makes it necessary for that person to obtain the consent of the commission.

I might say further, with respect to matters that were drawn to our attention, these matters were drawn to our attention after the limitation period had expired in relation to the initiation of any charges.

BELL CANADA CASE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on April 12, 1979, in response to a question posed by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), I indicated that I had asked my staff to obtain a report on the incident referred to wherein an accused person prevailed upon Bell Canada to connect a telephone in his office, said phone being an extension to that of the victim of a criminal offence.

As the accused is appealing his conviction and sentence, it would be inadvisable for me to comment on the case in detail. But, inasmuch as the evidence was led in open court, I can indicate that the accused person did in fact pose as a young lady’s husband and succeeded in having Bell install an extension phone in his office.

The accused person, by virtue of a previous social relationship with the victim, was able to gain access to her apartment and, with the assistance of an unknown female accomplice, was able to convince Bell employees, when a check was made by them, that the request was authentic and that the holder of the telephone number in question did in fact wish to have an extension placed in her husband’s office.

This extension was in effect for approximately 11 days, and the extension telephone and other equipment were seized by the police during the investigation of an offence of counselling to commit murder.

Since the accused was convicted and was sentenced to a lengthy jail term in the penitentiary, and because the evidence of the deception practised on the telephone company was led in court, it was decided not to lay a separate charge with respect to this incident. Undoubtedly, this deceit practised by the accused was taken into account by the presiding judge in sentencing the accused on the main charge.

I understand the police have brought the matter to the attention of Bell and in similar applications for extensions in the future we trust Bell will govern itself accordingly and take extra precautions to ensure it is actually the subscriber who is requesting the installation of the extension.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Attorney General’s response, but does he not feel something more than a trust in Bell Canada is indicated in a case where they would put an extension on a phone without ensuring the phone, in fact, was the subscriber’s phone and that the subscriber approved of that extension? Does he not think he has to exercise more than a trust?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know what the honourable member has in mind in relation to the jurisdiction I should attempt to exercise over Bell, but I can indicate there is no question from the evidence that rather a clever deceit was practised, so far as Bell was concerned, and as a result this extension phone was put in place, as the honourable member well knows, having brought it to my attention.

Bell Canada, firstly, having been advised of the deceit that was practised upon that company, and secondly, knowing that that deceit was part of an offence of conspiracy to commit murder, I think it would naturally follow that, having been apprised of these details, Bell would take greater care in the future to avoid a repetition of that type of deceit. I would be curious to know what further the honourable member would like me to do so far as Bell is concerned, the police having already brought this situation to the company’s attention.

Mrs. Campbell: I’ll advise the minister.

Mr. Speaker: I think in the future when ministers have an answer that lengthy, it should be done by way of ministerial statements. Do you have another?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have another statement of the same length in reply to a question by the member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Speaker: Go ahead with it. I’ll add to the question period.

ST. LAWRENCE STARCH DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) raised a question about the involvement of the Peel Regional Police in the strike at St. Lawrence Starch Company Limited. Since that time I have received a report on the matter and am able to make the following comments.

The Ontario Police Commission has developed standard procedure for municipal and regional police forces to deal with labour disputes. When a police force becomes aware of an impending strike and there is information that suggests there may be a confrontation between management and the union, the police liaison officer discusses with both management and the union leaders the role the police play in such matters.

Legal picketing is discussed, as are the various sections of the Criminal Code that are occasionally violated by either side in the dispute. The officer stresses that the police are not available to assist either side but only to ensure that peace and order are maintained. He also explains that the police presence at a strike will be only for the purpose of preventing incidents of violence or ensuring that streets, roads and access to the establishment do not become blocked.

When the Peel Regional Police force became aware of the impending strike at the St. Lawrence Starch Company, a liaison officer visited the premises on April 6. The officer made arrangements to meet with the company manager, Mr. Fred Troughton, and Mr. William Spencer, the representative of Local 410 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. The meeting was held on neutral ground in the employees’ lunchroom.

At that time the officer explained what the role of the police would be during the strike and provided both sides with copies of the relevant passages from the Criminal Code. Both union and management, I am advised, expressed their desire to co-operate with the police and expressed their appreciation for the time and trouble taken by the police to acquaint them with the relevant information.

I am further advised that the ensuing strike at St. Lawrence Starch Company premises on Lake Shore Road in Mississauga has not been unusually disorderly. There have been approximately five charges laid. I want to add further that the police presence at the scene has consisted of one officer in a marked police car. I believe the situation has been handled reasonably and professionally by the Peel Regional Police. Both union and management have generally conducted themselves responsibly.

I want to conclude by stating that the Ontario Police Commission ensures on a continuing basis that police forces are provided with adequate guidelines for dealing with situations involving strikes and lockouts.

TRAINING SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr. Cureatz: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In the light of the closing of the Pine Ridge School and in the light of the fact that the Participation House group over a year ago submitted to his ministry a proposal for using one of the facilities there, would his ministry now consider funding the Participation House project group and permitting it to use of one of the facilities?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in each of the communities where training schools are to be closed we have been engaged, in so far as we were able prior to this date, in seeking within government alternative uses of those facilities, both at the provincial and at the federal level. I have had discussions with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson), who will have responsibility for the future use of the facilities. I have been assured by him that we will have the co-operation of his ministry in cooperating with the communities in seeking to find alternative uses.

I am advised by him that the policy currently in place would require, prior to any direct consideration being given to local groups, that the ministry first seek alternatives within government and then seek alternatives at the level of local government, following which the facilities would then be open to alternatives from private groups.

I can assure the honourable member we will certainly follow that course and offer any assistance we can, along with the Ministry of Government Services in finding alternatives.

An hon. member: What about Burwash and Grandview?

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, following the minister’s announcement of the closing of the training schools at Lindsay and Bowmanville I would like to ask him whether he has a report on program options. If he has, has it been released and if not, when will it be?

What are his real alternatives for these young people living in a community setting? If the alternatives are group homes, does the minister feel there are sufficiently trained personnel to staff such homes, both at present and in the immediate future?

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Norton: In answer to the latter part of the question first, yes, I believe that in so far as the reference would be to the number of group homes at present in operation, there are adequate numbers of trained staff available and employed in providing that service.

I would emphasize, though, that the transition in terms of the reallocation of funds within the children’s services division from the existing training-school operations to the alternatives us not something that is going to happen overnight. There will be a phased-in period and in the course of that we are not going to be faced with placing large numbers of children or, necessarily, any children, immediately back into a community setting for whom a more appropriate setting would be a training school.

I would emphasize that even with the closings I have announced today, we will still have approximately 50 per cent excess capacity within the existing training schools. So there will be no need for us to return children unnecessarily to the community because we don’t have the accommodation for them in training schools. But as a result of the closings, the funds that are freed up by that for the alternatives, both in the community and in improved programming and physical plant within the remaining training school system, will then be applied to those purposes. This has been the case over the last couple of years, as we have improved the community resources for children.

I don’t think there should be any concern on the part of the communities that there will be any need to attempt to absorb children they cannot, and are not equipped to, cope with.

Mr. Eakins: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell me how many total employees will be affected at Lindsay and Bowmanville combined? Will the minister give me his assurance that every effort will be made to accommodate the long-term employees at the Kawartha Lakes School who have invested in property and who are a vital part of that community?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Absolutely. As I indicated in the statement, beginning at two o’clock this afternoon, the senior officials from the ministry began meetings both in Lindsay and in Bowmanville with the staff of each of the training schools discussing questions of alternative locations and assistance that would be offered to the staff.

The number of persons who are affected in Lindsay -- classified or full-time, long-term staff -- is 55. There are also approximately, I believe, 27 unclassified staff who had been hired on shorter-term contracts. In Bowmanville, there are 66 full-time, classified staff and 26 unclassified staff.

We have assured all the classified staff we will offer them alternative employment within the ministry or within government. In some instances, it will be in the remaining training schools. In other instances it will be alternatives for them in terms of employment in community-based programs that are being developed or are developed.

We cannot make that assurance to the unclassified staff. I believe it was the understanding at the time of hiring that we would not be able to offer them the longer-term job security. But we are prepared to say to them that once we have assured the relocation of the classified staff, we will lend every assistance we can to the unclassified in terms of future employment as well.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, further to the minister’s statement, and by way of supplementary, since this is the second phase of the training-school review program, whatever happened to the small, secure facility to provide treatment for severely disturbed adolescents to be located in Oakville and which was promised in the original February 1978 statement announcing the program? It was originally promised by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in November 1976. Has the minister made any progress in obtaining a small, secure facility to provide treatment for severely disturbed adolescents?

Hon. Mr. Norton: As the honourable member knows, certain difficulties were encountered.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) torpedoed it because he didn’t want it in his own riding.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The Minister of Transportation and Communications did not torpedo it, I can assure the member of that.

An hon. member: He sat on it.

Mr. Cassidy: He tabled it.

Mr. Samis: He stonewalled it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the member is also aware that there were certain concerns in that community that made it very difficult at that time for us to proceed. I can assure the member though that on giving further consideration to that project we hope to proceed with a model that would allow for the development of a small, secure unit in each of the regions of the province.

For example, if one looks at the physical structure of the buildings that we have, as stated in today’s announcement, chosen to retain, for example, in Cobourg, the relatively new buildings that have been built there in the last few years are on the model of separate cottages which would lend itself to several levels of security. It’s our intention --

Mr. McClellan: It’s been almost three years.

Mr. Martel: You guys live on announcements.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- that provision can be made within that facility for the more highly secure and intensive treatment unit for disturbed adolescents.

Mr. McClellan: Some of us reread your old announcements, you know. You keep recycling your old programs.

ATTACK ON UNION OFFICIAL

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General.

Mr. Samis: Come on, Roy.

Mr. Breaugh: He’s down in the penthouse.

Mr. Samis: He’s burning magazines over there.

Mr. di Santo: Given the considerable concern created among the members of Local 1 of the Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada as a result of the attack on John Meiorin, business manager of the local and president of the Confederation of Canadian Unions, on March 7, 1979, has the minister ordered an investigation into the ease; and, if he has, has the investigation led to the identification of the authors of the attack?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my information is that there is a very complete police investigation currently under way. A number of union leaders from across the country have corresponded with me in relation to theft concerns following this attack. I haven’t had any report from the police officials as to the success to date of their investigation, but I do know that an extensive investigation has been made and is still current.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: Given the nature of the attack and the position of the person attacked, Mr. Meiorin, can the Attorney General undertake that the investigation will be intensified and will he report to the House and table the results?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will obtain a further report as to the nature of the investigation and attempt to satisfy myself that -- as I believe that it is -- it is in fact being carried on in an intensive fashion. I will report to the House in due course as to the results of the investigation.

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. In view of the fact that negotiations have been going on for some time with the federal government in relation to the eastern Ontario development agreement, I would like the Treasurer to bring us up to date as to exactly where those negotiations now stand.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Set up.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we have been trying to re-establish those negotiations. A week or two ago in a telephone interview Mr. Lessard, who was then at his home in Alma, told me that he had to withdraw, I think it was the $10,000,000 industrial stimulation package from the eastern Ontario development agreement. Our staff reviewed the implications of that and felt we really needed that package in the eastern Ontario agreement or else we would have very little left.

We have since then received some indication that ARDA agreements for drainage already started would be honoured, but little else.

As of this morning I couldn’t find any response at all from the DREE group. My staff told me they had run into a brick wall and were getting no response at all in their attempt to negotiate there.

[Later (3:30):]

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: Last Thursday the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) rose on a point of privilege and questioned, “the credibility of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) in regard to my efforts last Friday to obtain copies of Ontario Hydro’s internal significant event report.”

I am sorry the honourable member isn’t here. He was not here on Tuesday either, but I would like to respond to this question.

Mr. Mancini: He is back home working for his constituents.

Mr. Gaunt: I will tell him all about it, Jim.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Good.

Actually what transpired was that on April 6 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) a question about nuclear plant safety. The Premier answered and also said the minister would pursue this further.

The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question on April 6, to which I responded, and a supplementary, to which I responded; which had to do with Hydro’s Babcock boilers; and then the member for Grey-Bruce asked a supplementary:

“The Babcock boilers? I have knowledge that there is a series of happenings with dates on them that is of great concern to me as a citizen. If he” -- meaning me -- “has seen these reports, would the minister be so good as to supply the Leader of the Opposition and both parties with copies of these reports as they come out. I know they’re classified as secret, but what is more important at this point than that the members of the Legislature know what’s going on in this very serious field?”

In replying to the Leader of the Opposition a few moments before that, I had said; “I am aware of the reports but I don’t see them on a regular basis. They are mainly of a technical nature, They are given to the Atomic Energy Control Board, I believe, on roughly a daily basis and then they are filed in the public reference library so that any member wishing to see them can go down to the Hydro library and see them.”

After the member for Grey-Bruce had asked that question, the Premier said, according to Hansard on April 6: “They are down in the Hydro library. Read them on the weekend.” Then I said: “As I said, all the member has to do is walk down the street and they are in Hydro’s reference library. They are not secret reports.”

Subsequently, in the honourable member’s question about privilege --

Mr. McClellan: How do you turn him off?

Mr. Conway: I don’t know. There’s got to be a plug.

Mr. McClellan: Somebody unplug the speaker.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- he said: “I have a point of privilege regarding the credibility of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) in regard to my efforts last Friday to obtain copies of Ontario Hydro’s internal significant event report. Last Friday the Minister of Energy denied that these reports were classified secret and at any time anyone could go into Hydro and get a copy. I will read from Hansard what was said.”

Mr. McClellan: Take your time.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Subsequently, he said:

“Following this, I went to my office and called the minister’s office and asked the exec for copies of the report. He said: ‘Yes, the minister says you can have them right away. I will send them right over.’

“I waited for a long time in my office. Nothing happened. I phoned back. They said: ‘There is a meeting arranged for you to go down to Hydro. You are supposed to meet this exec under the information board.’

“I did that, I waited there for a long time. Finally, the cloak and dagger started. For the next 45 minutes I met four other top execs who examined me and asked me questions. Finally, after 45 minutes, they took me to the top technocrat who wanted me to pinpoint a happening I wanted to see about.”

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is my office received a telephone call from the member for Grey-Bruce that afternoon, shortly after the question period. My secretary, who answered the call, said Mr. Sargent said: “I have just talked with Mr. Auld and he has said I could have a copy of the papers.” Mrs. Marshall said: “I’m not familiar with the papers you refer to, Mr. Sargent, but we will call our energy communications officer and arrange that they be delivered to your office as soon as possible, since Mr. Auld has agreed that you should have them.”

I just refer back to Hansard. I did not say the honourable member could have them, I said they were available to be seen at Hydro.

My secretary called the information officer from the Ministry of Energy who indicated he would get in touch with the honourable member. Eventually, he did. He suggested he go to Hydro and he would be met there and could indicate what he wished to see.

I understand he was met there by an information officer from Hydro. Hydro had some delay in finding a person technically competent to in effect explain and understand the notes, which are of a highly technical nature. The Hydro policy is that those notes not be removed from the library, because they are highly technical and technical people are required to explain them. Explanations were given as requested by the honourable member.

[Reverting (3:25):]

REPORTS

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr2, An Act to revive the Portuguese Club of London Inc., the title of which is to read an Act to revive Portuguese Club of London Incorporated.

Your committee would recommend that the fees less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on the said bill.

Report adopted.

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing social development committee presented the following resolution and moved its adoption:

Resolved that supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation be granted Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980: ministry administration program $7,611,300; heritage conservation program $18,735,700; arts support program $38,603,000; citizenship and multiculturalism support program $8,923,500; libraries and community information program $143,436,200; sports and fitness program $20,714,000; ministry capital support program $51,150,100.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE TRAVEL TO KINGSTON

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing resources development committee be authorized to travel to Kingston to visit the Urban Transportation Development Corporation test site on Wednesday, April 25, 1979; and that two and a half hours be credited against the time allocated for the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications; and that provisions of section 66 of the Legislative Assembly Act be not applicable.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SIMCOE DAY ACT

Mr. G. E. Smith moved first reading of Bill 63, An Act respecting Simcoe Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, as in previous bills, the purpose is to change the name of the public holiday celebrated in many municipalities on the first Monday in August from Civic Holiday to Simcoe Day in honour of John Graves Simcoe, who was appointed first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada on September 12, 1791, and who convened the first Legislative Assembly and established the capital of the province at York, now Toronto.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved first reading of Bill 64, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this is a reintroduction of my bill in the last session, and the purpose of the bill is to provide for the appointment of a curator of Queen’s Park. The curator of Queen’s Park would be responsible for advising the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor in Council concerning the conservation, protection and preservation of the heritage at Queen’s Park.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the interim answers to questions 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 126 and 127 standing on the Notice Paper. I wish to table the answer to question 121; and the interim answer to question 114 standing on the Notice Paper. At the same time I wish to table the answers to questions 111, 112, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 124 and 125; and the interim answers to questions 116, 122 and 123 standing on the Notice Paper.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Applause.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and a special thanks to my colleagues who have done what they were told to do.

This is a good time for a New Democrat to be responding to the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), not because of the ammunition we have with which to respond but because it is a good feeling in general in Ontario today to be a New Democrat. Ever since a year ago, when we elected a new leader, we have gone onward and upward. We saw, just a couple of weeks ago, the election of Colin Isaacs and Richard Johnston to this chamber, both of whose presence will be felt.

When occasionally I ramble through the back alleys of bureaucracy around Queen’s Park, the word I hear from the bureaucrats, many of whom are in highly placed positions in the civil service, is that the Liberal Party in Ontario peaked early and it’s all downhill from now on for them; that the Conservatives under the benign neglect of the Premier (Mr. Davis) are withering on the vine; and that tomorrow belongs to New Democrats. So I serve notice to them: “Move aside; we are coming through.”

Mr. Nixon: That and 60 cents will get you a ride on the subway.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would know -- certainly the Treasurer would know if he were here; and I understand he is coming back -- that preparing a budget is an onerous task, and I can assure you that responding to one in a serious way is also an onerous task. Whatever my input is today, it would not be as good as it is without the assistance of some people who are very important to me: namely, my assistant, Claudine Salama; and two researchers in our research group, in the economic area, each of whom has more cumulative knowledge about economic matters than the Treasurer and I combined: Anne Martin and Sym Gill, who have done a yeoman job.

Mr. Samis: Neither one of them sold cars, either; or tampered with odometers.

Mr. Laughren: I shall try to proceed despite my colleagues. Seriously, it really is a pleasure to be out and about in Ontario these days. No matter where you go in Ontario, you see the strength of this party. In eastern Ontario we have our leader and the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis), and the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes), who is doing an excellent job in this chamber and back in her riding. When you go to western Ontario you have our member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Bounsall); and a little closer, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). No one knows more about budget matters dealing with municipalities than my colleague from Welland-Thorold. He has a great deal of knowledge about that. In northern Ontario, of course -- well need I say anything about the quality of the members from northern Ontario?

Mr. Makarchuk: Self-evident.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps a special comment should be made about our critic from northern Ontario, the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), who has the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) on the run daily. The Minister of Northern Affairs never knows when he is going to find the member for Algoma hounding him about one problem or another in any part of northern Ontario.

Then of course there is the Metropolitan Toronto area. I see the Liberals immediately turning all green with envy when I talk about representation in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Nixon: How can we turn green with envy? We have the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) on our side.

Mr. Laughren: It is with enormous self-discipline that I refrain from responding to that.

Mr. Gaunt: A wise course.

Mr. Kerrio: You daren’t; she is bigger than you.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I shall --

Mr. Makarchuk: Yon will pay for that one.

Mr. Martel: I am sending her that Hansard.

Mr. Laughren: I shall attempt to address myself and this chamber to the problems of the Ontario economy.

The New Democrats regard the annual Ontario budget as both an economic and a social document. We regard it as an opportunity to either reinforce the existing economic and social system, or to effect changes in it. This budget obviously has done the former. I have never seen an Ontario budget that changed so little, yet so strongly reinforced an economic system that rewards and punishes in such perverse fashion.

I shall indicate in some detail the considerable shortcomings I see in the budget. But first, it is appropriate to lay before this Legislature a vision of the future towards which we believe a provincial budget should take us. My criticisms are based on the degree to which this budget fails to provide the proper direction and stimulus towards such a future.

By the way, I am happy to see the Treasurer here. I hope that he can stay and absorb a little.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can’t say. I can’t guarantee the absorption.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are optimistic.

Mr. Martel: He absorbs very little.

Mr. Laughren: We believe Ontario has enormous potential to provide its citizens with a healthy, prosperous and satisfying life, but we also believe that such opportunities will not be fulfilled unless nor social and economic priorities are changed.

The Davis government, even more so than those headed by John Robarts or Leslie Frost, is lacking in leadership that provides us with direction and goals. It is a sad commentary on this administration that it hearkens back to the days of Leslie Frost, rather than looking forward to a better Ontario.

New Democrats have a vision of a better Ontario; that vision includes a determination to build an egalitarian society; the determination to build a full employment economy and the determination to make our own economic decisions here in Canada, to build a healthy manufacturing sector and to be industrially more self-reliant. Those are our visions. In those visions, we put first and foremost our determination to build a social system that is not designed solely for the young and the swift. We firmly believe that individual initiative and personal growth can best be realized and rewarded within an economic system that insists on equality.

[3:45]

This government -- and both the Premier and Treasurer are its strongest advocates -- believes that we need a healthy private sector if we are to provide the social services that people need. This government will never build an egalitarian society because there will always be other priorities. The Treasurer believes that social services can be enhanced only if the private sector creates sufficient wealth to do so. We oppose this residual or trickle-down approach to vital social services.

New Democrats understand, of course, that social services are not free, but at the same time we know that the Tory free enterprise theory will always ensure an inequitable tax system and perverse distribution of wealth. The evidence is not even debatable. Since the Second World War, almost 35 years ago, the only redistribution of income has been to the top 20 per cent. Of course, this has occurred while the bottom 40 per cent has been deluged with a plethora of income support programs.

Never has a Treasurer so graphically demonstrated that he has no commitment to redistributing income. His abolishment of the succession duty tax, which applied only to the top three per cent of estates, is a good example but by no means the only one. Thus we have a budget that raises OHIP premiums, which everyone pays regardless of income, while the beneficiaries of the wealthiest three per cent receive tax relief. The Treasurer would have us believe that this kind of action is necessary in order to encourage investment in Ontario. He is wrong.

New Democrats want to build an Ontario economy that distributes income in an equitable way. We want an Ontario that distributes its wealth fairly, whether our wealth is increasing or even decreasing. We think that can be done and we would introduce budgets that would lead us in that direction.

Secondly, New Democrats want to build a full-employment economy. The social and economic costs of unemployment are unacceptable to us. We know as well that Ontario citizens will be impatient with political parties that ignore current problems while planning for and building a better future, and so they should.

That is why we accept the need for short-term measures that resolve some of our problems while we implement a longer-term strategy to rebuild Ontario. In the short run the government has an obligation to tackle our unemployment problem; 319,000 Ontario citizens, including 145,000 youths, are looking for work and this Treasurer has offered them absolutely nothing. His entire job creation program consists of 70,000 summer jobs for students.

When this government comes face to face with its own ineptitude over unemployment, how does it respond? First, we had the former Treasurer raising the level of unemployment that is acceptable; a wishful reaction that imagines away the problem. The present Treasurer at least acknowledges that there is an employment problem, but fails to create a single full-time job in this budget.

A year ago my leader laid before this Legislature a series of short-term job creation proposals. These proposals, if implemented, would create 45,000 jobs. None of them was simply a make-work project, all would have had beneficial social and economic effects, but this government chose to ignore all of them.

I would like to reiterate those proposals at this time: a shared cost program on apprenticeship training, 10,000 young people at a cost of $40,000,000; a home insulation program, 2,300 jobs at a cost of $10,000,000; a solar heating subsidy, 1,500 jobs at a cost of $30,000,000 a co-operative and non-profit housing program of capital grants, 14,000 jobs at a cost of $35,000,000; more assisted housing for families and senior citizens, 8,000 jobs at a cost of $55,000,000; a $25,000,000 expansion of the Ontario home renewal program, 1,500 jobs; special grants for hard services in northern Ontario, $25,000,000 for 1,000 jobs; and $150,000,000 to accelerate provincial and municipal capital projects for 7,500 new jobs.

That is a reasonable, thoughtful and immediate response to our unemployment problems. Such proposals would not only create 45,000 useful jobs, but the spinoff benefits would have added another 90,000 jobs. Such a program would not in itself put all our unemployment back to work, but it would have been a good beginning.

Thirdly, the NDP has a vision of an Ontario that has a viable manufacturing sector and is industrially more self-reliant. We believe that we can never determine our own priorities as long as the economic decisions are made elsewhere. The costs of a weak manufacturing sector and continuing dependence on imports to the Ontario economy would be devastating in both social and economic terms. At stake in the rebuilding process are several hundred thousand jobs, our massive current account deficit, the creation of good jobs for our people, a healthy, diversified tax base and industrial self-reliance when our non-renewable resources are depleted.

The task of achieving self-reliance and rebuilding our manufacturing industry, is difficult, of course, because of the US domination of our economy. It is difficult also because the problems in Ontario’s economy are not cyclical; they will not go away when the value of the dollar declines or when our labour force ceases to grow so quickly. Our problems are of a structural nature and thus require a long-term economic plan.

One wouldn’t think the Treasurer needs reminding that the Ontario economy is in fundamental structural disequilibrium. His own ministry prepared a devastating report as the Ontario government’s submission to the federal government on the repercussions of the GATT negotiations. However, I will remind him of a few facts.

We lead the industrialized world in the duty-free import of manufactured goods. We lead the industrialized world in the importation of high technology goods -- 54 per cent of the market in the mid-1970s. Canada’s share of world manufactured exports has declined dramatically in the five years between 1970 and 1975 from about six per cent to about two per cent. In Ontario, our value of manufacturing shipments in 1978 grew at a rate slower than any of the other provinces. Perhaps the Treasurer should reconsider some of the remarks he has made on the manufacturing sector.

The Canadian current account deficit in 1978 was $5,200,000,000. Even though we had a $3,400,000,000 surplus on goods, it was not manufactured goods. The Canadian deficit on fully-manufactured end products is $12,000,000,000, a record high, and it has risen dramatically in recent years.

Mr. Swart: What a testimonial to this government.

Mr. Laughren: Research and development in Canada has declined from 1.3 per cent of gross national product in 1969 to about one per cent in 1977, a 30 per cent reduction.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You’re a gloom and doom artist.

Mr. Laughren: Today our research and development spending ranks 14th in OECD countries, just ahead of Greece and Turkey. The US industry spends 40 times more on research and development.

Ontario’s manufacturing industry is 55 per cent foreign owned, with some sectors running much higher; such as chemicals at 82 per cent, rubber at 99 per cent and electrical at 74 per cent. The decline in manufacturing employment in the period 1974-77, in virtually every city in Ontario, is shocking. Recoveries in 1978, which the Treasurer is so fond of talking about, did not make up for that loss in many cases.

The New Democrats understand that without a strong government presence in the economy all our goals cannot be realized. We know that the day has gone when governments can stand on the sidelines and count on the invisible hand of the marketplace to shape events in our favour. We have seen that invisible hand shape our economy that has made us inordinately dependent upon our natural resources and foreign capital.

This Treasurer knows that our economic problems require government intervention. That is why he has introduced the Employment Development Fund, but he comes so reluctantly to the whole idea of intervention in the marketplace that his programs are apologies for their very existence.

The Treasurer has a responsibility to provide leadership and direction in the private as well as the public sector, but he has abdicated this responsibility to strike a balance between policies designed to stimulate the private sector and those designed to protect and improve the quality of life for our citizens. Thus we have a deterioration in the quality of health care. At the same time, costs to the patient are increasing while cash incentives are given to the Ford Motor Company and others.

The Treasurer’s hesitant, contradictory statements and policies have allowed his colleague, the lean and hungry Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), to move in quickly and implement programs based solely on the needs of the private sector.

We New Democrats do not believe that Ontario’s interests have been well served by either its director, this government, or by the cast of characters who have dominated the economic stage for so long. That is why we must intervene. New Democrats know that rebuilding our economy will not be easy. We know that we cannot lead the world in all our endeavours, but we know as well that we must, first of all, identify the areas of the economy that offer the most potential to build upon our natural strength, to replace imports and to provide export opportunities over the long run. Until that is done, we can only flounder.

This government is floundering in its half-hearted attempts to develop an industrial strategy. This government is floundering because it does not know where it wants Ontario’s economy to be in 10 or 20 years. Any such plan cannot be designed or implemented overnight, but we must begin to lay the foundation now for a healthy economic structure in the years ahead.

The NDP believes that we can achieve full employment. We believe our economy can be healthy and relevant with a major share of high-technology manufacturing. We believe that Ontario can play a major role in reducing the growing current account deficit that is directly the cause of our devalued dollar. This cannot happen as long as imports meet most of our demand for manufactured goods.

We believe Ontario can lead the way in the development and use of renewable energy sources, such as wood products, solar and wind. We are in an excellent position to pioneer a new method of home insulation as a commitment to conservation. We can also be world leaders in pollution-control equipment.

New Democrats believe that we, in Ontario, can reap the benefits from our mineral resources, and that much more processing and refining can be done here. We believe that much of the machinery used in Ontario’s nickel, copper, zinc and gold mines, and the machinery used in Saskatchewan’s potash mines, Alberta’s oil wells and in heavy construction projects can be produced in Ontario.

We believe food processing that will reduce our import dependence can be done in Ontario. We believe that we can produce the consumer electrical products so much in demand in this country and get a fair share of the booming electronics market.

The Minister of Northern Affairs made one of his normally irrelevant interjections a few minutes ago when he said we were the gloom and doom party. What I have just been telling you is that we have enormous optimism for the future of the province of Ontario, but not with this Treasurer in that seat.

The Treasurer knows we have problems and he knows that they will not be solved without government intervention, so he has reluctantly agreed to budget $200,000,000 for the government’s industrial incentives program.

New Democrats have never backed away from government intervention, but we condemn the way this government is proceeding. This government is prepared to give out $200,000,000, and more over the years, on an ad hoc basis. They are giving the money without a long-term economic plan. It is quite conceivable that this government would give out $200,000,000 worth of grants, which will be spread out over virtually the entire economy in each of the next 20 years. At the end of those 20 years we will have provided over $4,000,000,000, and I suspect the result will not be obvious to anyone. We will still have a truncated, branch-plant economy; we will still have massive trade deficits and the deindustrialization process will be continuing.

How is it logical to provide industrial incentives to the agriculture, tourism and manufacturing sectors when you do not have any idea of what role you want those sectors to play in a revitalized Ontario?

We know our manufacturing sector is in trouble, and since we cannot possibly solve all the problems at once we want to be selective. We must select those industries that have growth potential, that are high technology, that have a high import replacement factor and that dovetail with an overall provincial economic plan.

It is outrageous to ask us to approve a budget that toys with jobs, our industrial future and the balance of trade while spending public money.

We say to you, as clearly as we know how, any incentive program must have the following guidelines:

One, an economic plan must be in place to indicate where we want to be in the next 10 or 20 years. Specific sectors of the economy must be selected and a major commitment made to ensure their growth and success.

Two, repatriation of the economy must be part of our economic plan; and incentives must be designed and provided with this goal in mind.

Three, a central consideration must be import replacement. Replacing imports in the short run and stimulating exports in the long run should be a major consideration in any incentives program.

Four, major commitments should be made to specific sectors at any given time so that the incentives program is not dispensed in shotgun-like fashion over a number of sectors with no real impact on any of them. A sector should be selected and pursued vigorously in order to achieve the goals of self-reliance and job creation.

Five, incentives provided to the private sector should have built into them an individually-tailored planning agreement based on a combination of equity participation, job guarantees for Canadians, environmental protection, research and development guarantees, buy-Canadian commitments and reinvestment of profits in Ontario.

Six, an incentive program must not be allowed to exacerbate the lopsided development of Ontario. Regional development must be a major consideration whenever practical.

Finally, a comprehensive employment impact study must be carried out before any applications are approved.

Those are some guidelines we think make sense, and that we think the Treasurer should take and work into his employment development fund.

We in the NDP would select one or two key industries at a time and move in an aggressive, selective way, based on the criteria I have just outlined. Nowhere in the criteria for funding in the Treasurer’s program is there mention of the key manufacturing industries that need to be strengthened.

[4:00]

Let me tell the Treasurer what he should be doing with the Employment Development Fund. He should select a key manufacturing sector such as auto parts, machinery, electrical products, transportation equipment, or food processing. He should select a sector and proceed to rebuild it; to replace imports, to invest in research and development, and to reinvest earnings in this country. By concentrating on one sector at a time we will begin to correct our structural deficiencies, and in the process we may even be able to do something about stimulating our underdeveloped regions in Ontario. I shall give the Treasurer some specific examples in a moment.

The Treasurer’s criteria are an invitation for every branch plant, every manufacturer, indeed every business in Ontario to join a lineup at the door of the Employment Development Board. What nonsense. The strongest and most aggressive applicants will get the grants. Most of those are US subsidiaries.

If this Treasurer succeeds in strengthening the role of US subsidiaries in Ontario it will be an ironic tribute to him; he will have succeeded in making worse a problem most of us think he should be solving.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism talks ominously of making strong industries stronger. I find that ominous because I think I know what the minister has in mind. He intends to go with winners; and they tend to be in southern Ontario, and more specifically in the golden horseshoe.

I know what that means to regional development and I know too what it means for small, innovative, Canadian entrepreneurs. Not only will the Employment Development Fund ignore small business and regional development but it is singularly lacking in its main purpose, namely to create jobs.

Mr. Wildman: That’s right.

Mr. Laughren: Using the Ford incentive grant as an example -- a $68,000,000 grant to create 2,600 jobs -- the government’s grant works out to $26,000 per job. Using that figure, the $200,000,000 fund will create 7,600 jobs.

Hon. F. 5. Miller: That’s not fair.

Mr. Laughren: It’s more than fair, because I think we’ve used the total value of the Ford plant -- the $500,000,000 -- rather than the government money going into it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You didn’t use the Ontario grant, you used the total grant; and you just took the end jobs in the one plant.

Mr. Laughren: The total grant, yes; that’s what the grant was for.

Mr. Wildman: It’s even worse if we just use your figure.

Mr. Laughren: The arithmetic is right.

Mr. Foulds: We gave you the benefit of the doubt in all cases.

Mr. Swart: You didn’t include the services in that figure.

Mr. Laughren: If the Treasurer’s Employment Development Fund works out the way I’ve outlined, it will solve about 2.4 per cent of our unemployment problem in Ontario at the present time. I think that’s why the Treasurer refuses to even speculate on how many jobs his employment fund will create; he knows the sum is embarrassingly low.

If my figures are wrong, let him tell us the correct figures.

Mr. Wildman: He doesn’t even know what they are.

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps even more worrisome, is the evidence that the Treasurer and the Ministry of Industry and Tourism have already decided the fund will be used to protect existing jobs in the pulp and paper and other industries. Have they established that industrial dislocations as a result of the GATT negotiations will be such that they are setting up an adjustment fund that will protect jobs threatened by reduced tariffs? If so that’s fine, but they have an obligation to be honest with us on the matter. We shall be monitoring the allocation of the fund, very carefully.

The New Democratic Party is particularly concerned about the government’s virtual abandonment of regional development. Unemployment figures show a very real need for a regional development policy in Ontario. In February of this year northeastern Ontario had a 9.4 per cent unemployment rate. In eastern Ontario is was eight per cent. In the Peterborough area it was 9.2 per cent. In the Hamilton-Niagara area it was 10.7 per cent. In Windsor it was nine per cent. In St. Catharine’s it was 14.5 per cent; and in Sudbury 12.1 per cent.

As a matter of fact, in 1978 all areas except Toronto had an unemployment rate that was worse than in 1977. The minister’s response is not to create a single full-time job in this budget.

Mr. Wildman: Typical.

Mr. Laughren: Given those figures, the government’s Employment Development Fund must not be implemented so as to aggravate the already substantial regional disparities in Ontario. The fund must be used to stimulate the slow-growth areas, while at the same time make a serious attempt to rebuild particular industrial sectors.

We believe the government should use the fund to solve a number of problems at the same time. We believe it can be done, and I will illustrate with a couple of examples.

It is generally conceded that Ontario needs a mining machinery industry, that the north needs a more diversified economy, and that our deficit of manufactured goods -- over $12,000,000,000 in this country last year -- is too high. A mining machinery industry located in northern Ontario would help us to meet those needs. Canada is the third largest mining producer in the world and the second largest consumer of mining machinery, but we are the largest importer of mining machinery in the world. The share of the market captured by imports was 59 per cent in 1965; it was 91 per cent in 1978. The job loss represented by these imports is staggering. Given the fact that spin off employment results from manufacturing jobs, we estimate that as many as 18,000 jobs are being lost. For Ontario, where about 70 per cent of all machinery is purchased, that represents about 12,000 jobs.

In 1977, imports of machinery and equipment used for mining, oil and gas and excavating, amounted to $800,000,000. There is no reason why Ontario industry cannot displace a large proportion of these imports. Other countries have done it. Sweden, Finland, Britain and Germany all have healthy mining machinery industries. It is no coincidence, of course, that 70 per cent of the Canadian machinery industry is foreign-owned, that the bulk of our imports are from the United States and that the United States has a trade surplus in mining machinery.

Let me quote from the Ontario select committee report on natural resources foreign ownership and economic development. I would remind the Treasurer that his colleagues from his party sat on that committee as well. I quote from that report:

“There is scope for the development of a significant, Canadian-controlled presence in the mining machinery and equipment industry. The committee recommends that the government actively encourage the development of Canadian-controlled firms in the mining machinery and equipment industry through the provision of loans and research assistance and through purchasing policies.

“The committee recommends that policies be developed to improve the performance of mining machinery and equipment firms in terms of exports, research and development and increasing Canadian value added.

“Furthermore, the committee is of the view that if the private sector does not respond to the policies designed to encourage the development of the mining machinery and equipment industry, it may be appropriate for the government to become involved in this area directly.”

Further on, the same select committee suggested, and I quote:

“The development of an indigenous mine machinery producing industry could be assisted, for example, through the purchasing policies of a provincial mining company. Also, the provision of equity and/or working capital could provide venture funding for one or more new Canadian-owned companies.”

A study done for the federal Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in 1976 suggested the same thing. It recommended:

“Government-controlled development and manufacture of new process equipment. This could be achieved through the use of the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology to develop new technology, with manufacturing and marketing functions done either by a crown corporation or existing equipment suppliers.”

I am telling the Treasurer this but, if he had been listening to my colleague from Sudbury East these many years, he would already have absorbed that information.

The New Democratic Party believes that it is irresponsible to allow the mining machinery industry to continue to shrink. We support direct government involvement in the mining machinery business through the establishment of a machine crown corporation to be financed by a fund set aside for this purpose from the revenue accruing from Ontario’s natural resources. We have called such a fund the Ontario Tomorrow Fund.

If the private sector will not or cannot move, then the government itself has to see to it that a strong domestic service industry is built up around our strong primary industries. An NDP government would not tolerate more than 91 per cent of the market for resource machinery being provided by imports. And the capital investment needed to create jobs in mining machinery is much lower than it is for smelting & refining. The NDP has promoted northern cities -- Sudbury, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie -- as potential sites for a resource machinery complex. If the Treasurer needs any advice, the member for Algoma has a plan in his head for the development of all of northern Ontario which would put the Minister of Northern Affairs to shame.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Pie-in-the-sky.

Mr. Martel: Pie-in-the-sky? That’s the trouble with you guys; you just tinker with the system, and it’s in chaos now.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: What have you guys done in northern Saskatchewan?

Mr. Samis: Listen to the nattering nabob of negativism over there.

Mr. Wildman: It’s strictly doom and gloom over there.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Look at the mess you made in northern Manitoba.

Mr. Martel: Look at the mess you made in this province.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could restrain the gloom-and-doom Minister of Northern Affairs.

Mr. Samis: The nattering nabob.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I have to restrain the entire House. Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in the north is high, our trade deficits are staggering, and regions such as Sudbury are desperately in need of industrial development and diversification. We believe that a mining machinery complex in the north makes good sense on all three counts.

The Treasurer would be well advised to concentrate his efforts on making Ontario and Canada self-sufficient in mining machinery by the year 2000 or earlier. We have the world’s greatest natural laboratory in Sudbury, we have a university which could become a centre for research and development, and we have a skilled and ready labour force. What we lack is a Treasurer who is willing to confront the problem and intervene in this specific industry where his private sector friends have so obviously failed.

He knows it is safer to spread his incentives around; so he does just that and prays for a slower growth in the labour force and for a boom in the United States economy. Knowing this Treasurer, he probably also prays for a lower value in the Canadian dollar.

Hon. F. S. Miller: At least I pray.

Mr. Foulds: Is that for your sins of commission or your sins of omission?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have both kinds. I’m human.

Mr. MacDonald: Really? You’re very human all right.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I would give several examples of how we would run the employment development fund differently.

The building of a viable mining machinery sector is one way. The rebuilding of the food processing industry is another. Rebuilding this industry would provide jobs in the Niagara and southern Ontario regions; and if I’m lacking in expertise in this area, I would direct the Treasurer to my friend from Welland-Thorold.

For some time now, the National Farmers’ Union and the Canadian Food and Allied Workers have been aware of Canada’s declining position in fruit and vegetable trade as well as in other food products. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has sounded the alarm to this government too.

The problem is not that Canada has ceased to be a food exporter, but that our exports are becoming more specialized. For years now, Canada’s farmers have been pressed into producing for sale abroad more wheat, more of other grains, more oil seeds, and less of everything else, including meat, fruit, vegetables and dairy products. Ontario now has a 42 per cent deficiency in fresh fruits, including pears, peaches, grapes and apples; for all of these latter products our dependence on imports is growing, with no end in sight. From 11 per cent in 1965, imports as a percentage of Canadian food consumption had edged up to 13.4 per cent by 1976. This results in a loss of jobs for farmers, meat packers, fishermen, cannery workers and others. It also means a growing dependence for all of us on the availability and the cost of food produced in other countries.

Some time around the turn of the century, unless we adopt a new approach to our food system, the present policy will create an overall deficit in our food trade. We have already registered an overall trade deficit on processed food products between 1974 and 1976. As a nation we will be able to breakfast on our own milk, eggs and toast with margarine, but we’ll have to send out for lunch and dinner. That says something.

The deterioration in trade of fabricated goods and end food products is especially serious. These areas are especially important to Ontario and to Ontarians working in these industries. In the end products sector, only four of the 12 major foods were in a trade surplus position by 1977. Unless this government takes drastic action, the prospects are for further deterioration in the 1980s.

We want to know what this government is going to do about the fact that Canada’s perpetual trade deficit in processed fruit and vegetables is $300,000,000 and that imports account for 15 per cent of the market. We can grow 12 per cent of end products here. What about vegetable oil products, where imports capture 34 per cent of the market? Or confectioneries, where the trade deficit is $112,000,000? Or miscellaneous processed foods, where the trade deficit is $178,000,000.

We have estimated that imports of processed fruits and vegetables that can be produced in Canada -- $200,000,000 worth in 1977 -- alone are costing Ontario 2,200 direct jobs and 4,400 spinoff jobs, for a total of 6,600 jobs. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has similarly estimated that replacing the annual 50,000,000 pounds of cheese imports with domestic production would support 1,000 additional Canadian farm families.

Mr. Wildman: Does the member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) hear that?

Mr. Laughren: Does the honourable member hear that?

Food processing is a relatively labour-intensive industry.

Mr. Martel: Repeat that; the member missed it.

[4:15]

Mr. Laughren: I will repeat it for the member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry: Replacing the annual 50,000,000 pounds of cheese imports with domestic production would support 1,000 additional Canadian farm families. Why doesn’t the member tell the Treasurer to get off his seat and do something about it?

Mr. Villeneuve: Quota production is in Ottawa.

Mr. Samis: Don’t blame it all on them now.

Mr. Laughren: A lot of the problem is here in Ontario and if the member is suggesting the Treasurer wait for those in Ottawa who presided over the decline, that is a pretty sad excuse for strategy for rebuilding the industry.

This is another industry where this government cannot try to shift the responsibility to the federal government.

Mr. Martel: Everything is Ottawa’s fault.

Mr. Laughren: It is the segments of the food processing industry that are the most heavily concentrated in this province that are contributing most to the trade deficit. Ontario produces 40 per cent of all food and beverages; and produces 60 per cent of the $1,000,000,000 production in the fruit and vegetable processing sector, the industry in most severe trouble.

The food and beverage sector employs 10 per cent of Ontario’s manufacturing labour force, approximately 90,000 people. Nearly 19,000 of those are employed in the fruit and vegetable sector; and this government says the problem is in Ottawa.

I want to talk about tomatoes, a crop every Ontarian associates with southwestern Ontario. just as they do peaches with Niagara. Since 1967 there have been no significant exports of this commodity. Imports on the other hand have quadrupled since 1967; $12,000,000 worth of tomatoes and $19,000,000 worth of tomato paste in 1977.

By 1976 the Canadian Food Processers’ Association reported that 54 per cent of the market for tomatoes was met by imports. Our projection of this trend would lead to complete elimination of the domestic tomato canning industry by 1985. The canned tender fruits, canned mushrooms, potato processing, poultry eviscerating and beef sectors are also in major difficulty.

One of the things we have been trying to impress upon this government is the negative effect foreign ownership brings to this economy. While foreign ownership is relatively lower in this industry than others at 36 per cent, certain subsectors, especially end-food products, are heavily foreign owned. It is no coincidence that a high degree of foreign ownership directly correlates to trade deficits in these particular sectors. Nor is it a coincidence that these same sectors exhibit a high degree of monopoly control.

Together, agriculture and food is our biggest industry, yet they have been thoroughly neglected by the Ontario government. Examples are not hard to find. The estimates for the agriculture ministry in this year’s budget show a miserly 1.1 per cent increase.

Promotional plans in Ontario supermarkets to buy domestic produce may have turned customers on with flashy posters, but we pose the question: what good is promotion if Canadian produce is not available at the supermarket, even in season?

We know the Ministry of Industry and Tourism set up a task force in the fruit and vegetable processing industry in Ontario. It is about time. As far back as 1962 a federal government study warned that many fruit canneries, the economic mainstay of the Niagara Peninsula, were in danger. My friend from Welland-Thorold now says there is only one left and it is owned by a multinational conglomerate. Now, a decade too late, we have a task force. Where was this government when it was needed?

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s latest food land guidelines are just that, guidelines; and I quote from them: “Municipalities are encouraged to review and update their plans.”

In other words, business more or less as usual. The entire thrust of this statement is to leave a matter of province-wide concern strictly to municipalities. Meanwhile, the amount of land available for growing food continues to drop.

To sum up, the Ontario government has no comprehensive food policy. It has closed its eyes to the strategic importance of food.

Mr. Wildman: Agriculture is not even mentioned in the budget.

Mr. Laughren: The NDP would develop a food policy which would provide a guarantee for a satisfactory level of income for the farmers, and fair and stable food prices for consumers.

As a top priority we would establish self-sufficiency in all foods, raw or processed, that we can produce ourselves in order to protect and create jobs in food processing and agriculture.

The NDP would take a public hand in food policy. The required public commitment to food self-sufficiency reaches out into industrial policy, and that is why I am stressing this particular sector to the Treasurer today.

An NDP government would treat food processing as a key manufacturing priority and move aggressively into planning agreements with food processors that would guarantee jobs, modernization and rationalization, but not more concentration. We would also do more basic crop research and explore the possibilities for alternative types of commercial food production, for example, to reduce energy use.

Two, the NDP would consider direct participation, through publicly-owned canneries for basic food commodities such as the critical fruit and vegetable processing area, especially where such canneries are nearly extinct.

Three, we would lobby against any move to enter into duty-free bilateral agreements with the USA that would further decrease our self-sufficiency in food. We would lobby for more protection where the long-term benefits in increased self-sufficiency warrant such action; for example, products such as canned tender fruit, canned tomatoes and mushrooms.

Four, the NDP would undertake moves to ensure future production. We would, through legislative action, move to reserve for farming all class one, two and three land, and special crop lands. Any alternative use of food land would be permitted only with the unanimous consent of local planning authorities, councils and provincial planning authorities, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The NDP would ensure that the results of government producer initiatives were not lost in the corporate maze between farm gate and checkout counter. We would do this by reviewing the retail prices of all foods produced under government improved-income or marketing plans, and by outlawing predatory practices.

That, Mr. Speaker, is a food and agriculture policy.

Mr. Swart: By being in that government the member for Chatham-Kent moves agriculture in Canada backwards.

Mr. Kerrio: Everybody would work in the government.

Mr. Martel: He didn’t mention the government, you dummy.

Mr. Kerrio: You couldn’t save the country that way; use your noodle, will you.

Mr. Martel: I bet you couldn’t even comprehend anything, you couldn’t understand anything. You should go back to pre-kindergarten books and learn to read.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: I mean you’re out of it; you’re sick.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt has the floor.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have talked about two manufacturing sectors which need rebuilding. Both could benefit from a properly managed Employment Development Fund. They are examples of what can be done by government to rebuild our manufacturing industries.

There is another sector that is in a state of crisis. Government attention in this industry should not come in the form of tax concessions or incentive grants. I am speaking of a sector that instead -- are you ready for this, Vince? -- that instead needs direct public participation, a sector in which private enterprise has lost all credibility; and that sector, of course, is mineral resources.

This government’s record as a guardian of our resources is simply unbelievable. For decades, the private sector has extracted the resources and done with them exactly as it pleased. In an act of hypocrisy, this government inserted section 113 into the Ontario Mining Act, stating that our minerals must be refined here. Then this government proceeds to grant exemptions with indecent haste.

Falconbridge has been mining nickel in the Sudbury area for 45 years and has yet to build a refinery there. Inco has a refinery but still ships about 20 per cent of its ores to Wales for further processing. And the Treasurer was a former Minister of Natural Resources.

As though that’s not bad enough, last year this government gave Inco and Falconbridge permission to continue to ignore section 113, and as well decided to allow them to charge their offshore processing costs against Ontario operations. If ever a government was whipsawed by a couple of wealthy multinationals it is this government.

This Treasurer acts as though he is fearful of being judged harshly by the mining sector and has ingratiated himself by giving the big operators even more. He reduced the top marginal mining tax rate from 40 to 30 per cent. Only the three or four giants in the industry will benefit from this reduction. The Treasurer knows that. The Treasurer argues that he took these actions in order to encourage new exploration and development. What a joke. The Treasurer is being snickered at in every mining company board room in New York.

Last year, Inco officials who appeared before the select committee regarding the Sudbury layoffs told us theft problems were caused by world markets, not taxation rates. In fact my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and my colleague from Algoma were on the committee and can verify that.

The mining companies say one day that the problem is world markets, not taxation; and the next day they are asking for another concession or a tax allowance.

I suspect that they saw the Treasurer coming and suckered him into yet another act of kindness. Let me tell you about how kind this government is to the mining industry, Mr. Speaker. In 1977-78 the value of mineral production in Ontario was $2,700,000,000; yet the province received, in corporate income tax and mining profits tax, the grand sum of $39,000,000. That is a return of 1.4 per cent on production. With that kind of management, I am not surprised that the Treasurer has put his personal business interests into a blind trust.

Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan is a contrast. Knowing how the Treasurer likes to use examples from that fine province, let me point out that the value of mineral production there in the same year, 1977-78 was $511,000,000, less than 20 per cent of Ontario’s production. The return to the people of Saskatchewan from their resources was $113,600,000, or 22.3 per cent of production. So with five times as much production, Ontario received about one third of the return.

Mr. Swart: Whose resources are they anyway?

Mr. Martel: A scandal. You guys should hide your heads.

Mr. Laughren: This Treasurer and his predecessors have all taken the same line, namely that tax concessions are necessary to encourage investment and protect jobs. Perhaps the Treasurer could explain why, in the last decade, employment in the Ontario mining industry has dropped from 34,600 to 25,300, a shocking 27 per cent, while the value of production has risen 228 per cent. Perhaps the Treasurer could tell us why there is more exploration and development occurring in Saskatchewan right now than in any other province.

This year, $80,000,000 will be spent on exploration and development in Saskatchewan. In Ontario, the mining industry will spend about $25,000,000.

Mr. Martel: They are escaping the socialists, eh Leo?

Mr. Laughren: Obviously, it is possible to get substantial revenues from the industry while at the same time encouraging mining development. The NDP government in Saskatchewan has learned how to manage the province’s resources by an intelligent and fair use of the tax system and a commitment to the public ownership of mineral resources.

The New Democratic Party has a policy determined by convention and reaffirmed and refined over the years. That policy is to bring into the public sector the mineral resources of Ontario, with those resources playing a key role in an industrial strategy for this province.

We believe our resources can be used as a lever to help us regain our rightful position as an industrial province. We believe that with our resources in the public sector backward linkages will encourage the development of a mining machinery industry. We believe that forward linkages will lead to further processing, more research and development, and the development of more end products. We believe that with our resources in the public sector we can work towards the creation of a mining sector that is a model of environmental protection, industrial relations and occupational health and safety.

I would like to say a few words about the small business sector. It is a sector that sometimes gets shunted aside due to government preoccupation with enterprises that operate on a grand scale. But we should not forget that it is the small business sector that has created the large bulk of the jobs during the last 10 years.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has done its homework and points out that between 1971 and 1977 58 per cent of new jobs in the private sector were created by small firms. I must say that while these statistics are starting a word of caution is in order. The small business sector is greatly dependent upon the state of the economy in general. As a matter of fact the greatest stimulation the government could give to small business would be a commitment to a full employment economy. For example, a large mining machinery complex in a northern Ontario community, where there is 12 per cent unemployment would inject new life into existing small businesses and offer exciting new opportunities to new ones.

[4:30]

The small business sector can be a dynamic, vital area of our economy. However, the dominance of large corporations in our economy has made it difficult for small businesses to compete because of lack of access to sophisticated financial, managerial and technical advice. The government has not seen fit to provide this expertise and it is not usually available anywhere else. As a result bankruptcies have increased each year for the past several years. They have been highest among small business and among businesses in operation under six years, which were in need of capital and advice and got neither.

Big business corporations, such as oil companies, have been systematically eliminating small businessmen for many years now. Small businessmen and the NDP have a lot in common in their opposition to the growing concentration in our economy and theft feeling that this is not the most efficient way to do business. NDP provincial governments have all taken steps to ensure the continued health of the small business sector in their respective provinces.

There are several things this government should do, and should urge the federal government to do, to help small businesses and in the process diversify our economy. West Germany, Japan and many other countries have set up vigorous trading companies which make contact with overseas businessmen, arrange contracts and allow local businesses to fill those contracts. The Export Development Corporation, which should be active in this area, has always favoured big business. The federal government should emulate the American government procurement program, in which one third of the US government’s spending on goods and services is guaranteed to small business, and for which much of the purchasing has been decentralized to the local level.

Central to the problem of small business development over the next few years is the control and use of technology. If we are to de-emphasize the selling of unprocessed raw materials we must be prepared to replace the branch-plant structure of our economy with a vigorous small and medium business sector which will develop and use Canadian technology. This implies changes in all the government policies that affect small business -- government procurement, taxation, licensing and use of technology, foreign investment, the availability of venture capital, and so on.

This government has done little to relieve the day-to-day aggravations that small businesses have. I am thinking of property taxes and the lack of uniform store hours as two examples.

In his budget, the Treasurer has decided that small businesses need venture capital.

He is right. New Democrats support the principle of making venture capital available to small businesses; but we think the Treasurer has gone about it the wrong way. The NDP does not think that investors should be rewarded by the taxpayers to the tune of 30 per cent. That is simply a regressive way of providing funds, because we know that only people with a relatively high income will invest in Small Business Development Corporations.

Our second problem with the SBDCs is that there appears to be no guarantee that small business will be able to obtain money from them at a rate lower than from the traditional lending institutions. Government-guaranteed loan insurance would go a lot further towards helping Canada’s small businessmen raise capital. We shall be watching carefully the Small Business Development Corporations program to see if its intended role is realized and to monitor the cost to Ontario taxpayers.

Prior to the budget being introduced, I indicated that it was time for Ontario to press for the introduction of a takeover tax. When I recommended that, I was thinking not only of the potential revenues but of the small businesses in Ontario as well. The trend to increased concentration in our economy is an ominous one. Recently released figures from Statistics Canada show that Canada’s 25 leading enterprises made 24.2 per cent of all profits, the 100 leading enterprises made 43.2 per cent of all profits and the 500 leading enterprises made 64.2 per cent of all profits. These figures indicate an alarming amount of concentration of economic power.

The Treasurer and the Minister of Industry and Tourism both have refused to answer a question from me as to the criteria on which they recommend to the Federal Investment Review Agency approval of applications from foreign corporations. FIRA tells us that it concurs with the recommendations of the provinces in 95 per cent of the cases reviewed. The number of takeovers allowed has risen from 33 in 1974 to 282 in 1978, and the percentage allowed from 80 to 91 per cent. So the government of Ontario is obviously in agreement with both the increased foreign control of our economy and the increasing concentration of economic power in fewer and fewer hands. It is no wonder the small business community feels threatened.

We do not support corporate takeovers that simply reduce competition or unduly increased concentration of economic power. There is something wrong with the corporate world investing without creating a single new job. We understand, of course, that some mergers or takeovers are to be encouraged, if for example they help to rationalize an industry and allow companies to operate with greater economies of scale and efficiency. As a matter of fact we would encourage such mergers in some manufacturing sectors such as mining machinery or electrical products. We believe that the current rash of mergers and takeovers are not in our best interests. It is madness to allow large corporations to indulge themselves with investments that serve no useful purpose.

I have spent considerable time discussing the broad economic issues. I now turn to our health-care system. New Democrats have a special passion for medicare. We regard ourselves collectively as its founder. We fought long and bitter battles in Saskatchewan, as we did federally and here in Ontario. There is no issue on which we will fight harder.

The Treasurer should know that healthcare costs in Ontario are not out of line with other jurisdictions. According to the Economic Council of Canada, health costs within this country have not escalated as much as they have in the United States. The share of health costs in the US GNP has risen steadily to 8.6 per cent in 1976, while in Canada it levelled off at 6.8 per cent in 1976. That is medicare here and private health care in the United States.

This government pretends that health-care costs are getting out of hand, yet as a percentage of budgetary expenditures health care is lower now than it was in the first year of the Davis administration. In more recent years the proportion of health-care expenditures paid out of Ontario’s general revenues has declined in absolute terms and as a percentage of expenditures.

Mr. Martel: Hear that, Frank?

Mr. Laughren: By 1979-80, OHIP premium revenue will have risen from 22.8 per cent three years ago to 24.7 per cent of health-care expenditures, while the share paid out of Ontario’s general revenues had dropped from 28.1 per cent to 19.8 per cent. This Treasurer, a former Minister of Health, should know that much of our health cost is not in the public sector. If he stopped listening to his fiscal technocrats he would be tackling the hidden problems of health care, not shifting the burden to the users by increasing OHIP premiums.

We have, in Ontario, only part of our health-delivery system in the public sector. Multinational corporations dominate the health-supplies field and the drug industry and the private sector dominates our medical labs, nursing homes and homes for special care. As a result, the profit motive still shapes many priorities; and that, of course, is why small communities suffer from a lack of personnel, ambulance services and nursing-home facilities.

The Treasurer should know there is already a shortage of health-care facilities in northern Ontario and that universal cutbacks make no sense whatsoever. If he doubts that he should have a chat with my colleague the member for Algoma.

The medical supplies and equipment industry, largely US-owned, is contributing mightily to our health-care costs. This government should move immediately to effective centralized hospital purchasing by establishing a crown corporation to purchase health goods in bulk for distribution to hospitals, drug stores and community clinics. A second crown corporation would produce, either jointly or by itself, the most common goods required by the entire health-services field.

If this government wants our support in controlling health-care costs it must restructure the system. We must move toward the establishment of community health and social service centres with a team of doctors, dental practitioners, nurses, social and legal workers and so forth, all of whom would be on salary. For further advice on that matter I would refer him to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), our Health critic, and the member for Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta), our previous Health critic, both of whom know a great deal about the provision of health care in Ontario.

The Ontario Council of Health’s recent report, Health Care for the Aged, indicates that nine per cent of Ontario’s population are now over 65 years of age. This will increase to 13 per cent by the year 2001. Surely this government should move now to provide specially trained medical and paramedical personnel, chronic-home care service, senior citizen housing, homes for the aged and nursing homes in anticipation of this demographic shift.

A chronic-homecare program for Ontario must be implemented now all across the province, not just in a few pilot areas. Such a chronic-homecare program would enable many of our citizens to remain in their homes and communities, where they want to be. This would result in savings by relieving pressure on our nursing homes and hospitals.

It is also wrong to impose deterrent fees on chronic-care patients. That is a despicable way to raise revenue.

Raising OHIP premiums is not the answer to controlling health-care costs. Premiums should be progressively reduced until the burden has been shifted entirely to the more progressive corporation and personal income taxes. Even the Ontario Economic Council has recommended this in its latest report. The NDP would do that, because there should be no higher priority for a government than the provision of quality health care to every citizen of Ontario regardless of financial means.

As my colleague from Parkdale says, “The fight for universal health care is a significant part of our party’s struggle to equalize the distribution of wealth and income in our society.” We serve notice to this government that we will never support a budget, a throne speech, a bill or a resolution that erodes universal access to health care. We believe this government is in the process of doing just that. There is no issue on which we will fight so hard; and both the government and the Liberal Party should have no illusions about that.

I would like to talk for a moment about the housing problem in Ontario. This is the final major topic.

Despite the Ministry of Housing, the Ontario Housing Corporation and property tax credits, there is a distressing shortage of housing for low- and middle-income earners. The introduction of a rent review process in 1975 provided a degree of protection for tenants, but this government has been a reluctant supporter of the whole process.

That fact is illustrated by their failure to implement a massive public housing program when rent controls were introduced. The most effective rent control should be accompanied by a substantial commitment to the construction of public housing for low- and middle-income people.

The cost of housing in Ontario has become prohibitive for people unless there are two income earners in the family. In Toronto the average price of a home is now over $67,000. In 1971, the beginning of the Davis government years, one third of all Toronto families could afford to spend 25 per cent of their income on a mortgage. Now, eight years later, only 10 per cent of Toronto families can afford a mortgage on the average home. To buy the average home in Metro today, the average worker would have to spend half his wages on mortgage payments. This means that with a 30-year mortgage a worker must earn $3.53 an hour just to make his mortgage payments. Over the lifetime of the mortgage the cost of the house could be $226,800; and this does not include property taxes, heat or maintenance.

Mr. Swart: It must be the fault of your developer friends.

Mr. Laughren: Last year the budget promised property tax reform and enriched tax credits for senior citizens.

Mr. McClellan: Whatever happened to that promise?

Mr. Laughren: We have been given neither. This government continues to shift the tax burden from general revenues to tenants and home owners. New Democrats indicated to the government last year that we are prepared to support property tax reform on certain conditions. The government could have introduced property tax reform, knowing it would have had sufficient support in this Legislature. But it chose not to do so.

As a result, tax reform is taking place anyway, through the appeal process, and the burden is shifting from the commercial-industrial sector to the residential property owner.

New Democrats believe the education and social service component of property tax should be reduced and shifted to more progressive taxes, but this government is putting more and more reliance on the regressive property tax. In 1975 the government met 61.4 per cent of average education costs across the province, leaving 38.6 per cent to be paid out of property taxes. This year the government share is expected to be only 51.5 per cent, so that property taxpayers must meet 48.5 per cent of the total.

In Metro Toronto the shift is even more dramatic. The government provided 35.1 per cent of education costs in 1975, but will pay only 20 per cent this year. Property taxes had to provide 64.9 per cent of Metro’s education dollar in 1975; but for 1979 they must meet fully 80 per cent of the cost.

Just as the former Treasurer reneged on the Edmonton commitment to keep assistance to municipalities in line with the growth of provincial revenues, so has this Treasurer found a way to weasel out of a commitment. Last year the Treasurer promised the municipalities that assistance would be forthcoming in accordance with the growth in provincial expenditures. When the announced increase in provincial expenditures was six per cent, quite naturally the municipalities assumed their grants would go up six per cent; but in a dazzling display of footwork and doubletalk, the Treasurer announced the municipalities would get only a five per cent increase. This Treasurer had unilaterally decided to subtract debt charges from his commitment.

Mr. Martel: He has lost all credibility.

Mr. Laughren: The municipalities have learned that what the Treasurer promises is not what he delivers, and every municipal official is braced for the Treasurer’s next act of fiscal deceit.

[4:45]

I said earlier this was a budget of lost opportunities. An Ontario Treasurer has opportunities greater than those in other provinces, but this Treasurer is letting opportunities slip through his fingers. The Treasurer has neglected opportunities to create jobs for unemployed, to begin the process of rebuilding our economy, to reclaim our resources for us and to tax people according to their ability to pay.

While our suggestions for creating jobs in the short term are a beginning, the real potential lies in rebuilding and recreating our manufacturing sector. The Treasurer has an opportunity to use his Employment Development Fund for that purpose, but he indicates he has no intention of selecting one sector at a time and rebuilding it.

The job-creation possibilities of replacing imported manufactured goods with ones produced here are enormous. Jobs lost to imports are increasing. The latest figures on imports of machinery, for example, represent 132,000 potential jobs in Ontario. Electronic imports represent 102,600 jobs; electrical products 52,500; and processed fruit and vegetables, 6,600 potential jobs.

The Minister of Industry and Tourism says we shall rebuild our manufacturing sector by stimulating exports. He should know that the first step towards selling on world markets is to develop the expertise and economies of scale at home. That means serving our domestic market first. An aggressive policy of replacing imports would help us to become more self-reliant, would ensure that more economic decisions are made here and would address the severe balance of payments problems.

Rebuilding our manufacturing section by replacing jobs lost due to imports should be the linchpin of any industrial strategy; even this government’s poor excuse for one, the Employment Development Fund. The Treasurer is letting that opportunity slip away.

The Treasurer has increased revenues by $269,000,000. All but $36,000,000 of that comes from regressive taxes. I have noted the Treasurer’s tendency to quote from the Saskatchewan budget. I hope he read the table that compares the provincial tax loads of an average family. If he has, he must have noticed that the burden of provincial taxes, plus health premiums, is lowest in Saskatchewan. For a family with an income of $15,000, the highest tax rate in the entire country is imposed not by the socialists in Saskatchewan but by the government of Ontario.

Mr. Foulds: How come the Treasurer didn’t quote that?

Mr. Laughren: Think about that. In the richest province we have the highest tax rate for ordinary working people. Even after tax credits and rebates, Ontario still imposes the highest burden on ordinary people.

Mr. Martel: You give more tax breaks.

Mr. Laughren: The Treasurer may have wondered how an NDP government was able so easily to outdistance not only this Tory government but all other provincial governments. In large part NDP governments are able to carry out progressive policies because they rely on progressive sources of revenue.

Mr. Cassidy: You have to die here to get a tax cut.

Mr. Laughren: In Ontario, an NDP government would increase taxes on large corporations across the board to 15 per cent. We would retain succession duties, increase the taxes on mining corporations and impose a capital gains tax. Our tax changes would raise more money and would be from progressive sources.

We regard this as a budget of lost opportunities.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Even Mr. Barrett wouldn’t put back succession duties. He was asked that last week.

Mr. Laughren: I want to tell the Treasurer that the NDP governments that have abolished succession duties have compensated for it by a progressive tax system and by abolishing OHIP premiums. The Treasurer hasn’t done that.

Mr. Swart: It was part of a package.

Mr. Laughren: We regard this as a budget of lost opportunities. We cannot support this budget. We could not do so whether a vote was to be held today or next December.

It is a budget that is not only regressive but points in a direction which we find abhorrent. The shift from progressive to regressive taxes, the disturbing suggestions that OHIP premiums increase with the cost of insured services, the callous indifference to the plight of people trying to cope with inflation and the neglect of the unemployed are all unacceptable to us.

We are angry at the Treasurer’s cynical and hypocritical rhetoric, which promises but fails to deliver. The Treasurer says: “The most important problem facing Ontario today is the need to create more jobs.” He introduces not a single program to create a single new job, and he admits it. The Treasurer says: “Ontario must provide policy initiatives to reduce inflation.” He does not do that in his budget. In fact his regressive measures are in themselves inflationary. He fails to establish an Ontario food prices review board to protect consumers from unjustified increases in the price of food.

The Treasurer abolished succession duties, which affected only three per cent of estates in Ontario, and says: “The continuation of this tax is hurting our economic performance and costing us jobs.” That is nonsense; the Treasurer knows he cannot back it up with any evidence.

The Treasurer brags that Ontario’s personal income tax rate -- at 44 per cent, our basic federal income tax -- is the second lowest in Canada. That is a distortion of the facts, because the Treasurer knows that OHIP premiums are a tax, whether paid directly by individuals and families or paid by employers in lieu of wages.

The Treasurer has said: “In recent years, the competitive position of the manufacturing sector has been restored.” Why, then, did the manufacturing trade deficit rise to a record $12,000,000,000 last year? Why did the machinery and auto parts deficits get worse? The Treasurer has not faced these realities in his budget.

The Treasurer says there has been no reduction in the quality of health care. Such a statement shows gross indifference at a time when hospital budgets are being slashed, extra billing and opting out of physicians is rampant and universal access to insured medical care is being eroded.

For these reasons, I move the following motion:

Mr. Acting Speaker: Mr. Laughren moves that the motion be amended by striking out all words after “that” and the following be substituted therefor: “This House deplores the government’s failure to recognize the seriousness of the unemployment problems in Ontario by providing any full-time jobs; rejects the increase in OHIP premiums and other regressive taxes while doing nothing to protect consumers against rising prices; condemns the lack of commitment to rebuilding any specific industry within our manufacturing sector, and the failure to attach any performance and employment guarantees to its Employment Development Fund; opposes the continued giveaways of our mineral resources; and finally, condemns the shift of the cost of education and social services to municipalities, and for these reasons, the government no longer enjoys the confidence of this House.”

On motion by Hon. Mr. McCague the debate was adjourned.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONTINUED)

On vote 501, ministry administration program; item 1, main office.

Mr. Acting Chairman: The member for Essex North.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, on the last evening --

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Acting Chairman: I’m sorry, I recognized the member for Essex North. I’m sorry; I didn’t see the member for Oakwood.

Mr. Grande: I was on my feet on the last evening, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ruston: I just wanted to follow up -- is this the same thing, with Middlesex?

Mr. Grande: Go right ahead.

Mr. Ruston: I’ll be brief. I want to check with the minister about the remarks by the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) and by the minister as to the Middlesex building we were discussing the other night. Would the money involved, the Ontario government’s share, be coming from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, or would it be coming from his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, it’s in the estimates. It’s here in the book.

Mr. Ruston: It’s in this ministry’s estimates?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member will have a chance to approve or disapprove of it.

Mr. Ruston: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, are we going to follow up on this courthouse matter? I want to say something on it too but, if the other member was on his feet and talking on the same thing, fine.

Mr. Acting Chairman: The member for Oakwood had the floor when we adjourned. Perhaps we could go back to the matters raised by the member for Oakwood, and then we could deal with the courthouse matter following that.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, if I might help you: You were not in the chair the other night; we were discussing the Middlesex building. At the time we adjourned, the member for Oakwood was on his feet, hut we really hadn’t got away from the Middlesex building at that moment. I don’t think he is interested in the Middlesex building. But I’ll be glad to answer whatever is asked of me.

Mr. Acting Chairman: In view of that, would the member for Oakwood agree that we should complete the courthouse matter and then return to the matters which he wishes to discuss?

Mr. Grande: As you see fit, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, when this discussion took place last Tuesday, I was fulfilling my responsibilities in the committee considering the Ministry of Transportation and Communications estimates. I didn’t realize this matter was being discussed or I would have come up to the House and participated in the debate.

I was a little annoyed at the comment made by the member for Middlesex when he indicated, in connection with this particular matter pertaining to the Middlesex courthouse, that I had just paid lip-service. I simply want to indicate to the minister that I am the type of person who does work behind the scenes. I don’t particularly expect to get bold print in the papers every time I happen to contact a federal member to see if we can’t get them to live up to a commitment they made, or when I attend meetings. I didn’t attend all the meetings that were called, but I certainly attended the meetings I was invited to attend in connection with this particular matter. I was working behind the scenes. I’m not saying this because I want to take a great deal of credit, but because I take exception to what the member for Middlesex said, that I simply paid lip-service.

There is a lot of confusion in connection with this whole matter, and I would like to try to put it in its proper perspective.

The total cost of restoring and renovating the courthouse in Middlesex amounted to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2,400,000. The total cost of restoring the building was estimated at $1,600,000.

Before the title had been turned over the municipality, I believe the federal government had agreed to match the provincial government funding on a 50-50 basis, which would mean 50 per cent of $1,600,000, or $800,000. But, as one reads through some of the correspondence from Hugh Faulkner and others, they seemed to treat the total cost of $2,400,000 as the total cost of restoration, which simply was not the case.

[5:00]

Then when title was transferred to the municipality I believe federal government policy was that once the municipality becomes involved, any funding is treated on an equal-cost formula basis. That means the federal government would contribute one third to funding the restoration; the provincial government would contribute one third; and the municipality would contribute one third.

I believe Middlesex county council misunderstood what Mr. Faulkner had tried to indicate or was not knowledgeable about the federal government policy, which I believe has not changed. I believe that has been its policy for some time; that if there is going to be funding for the restoration of buildings which are declared historic, the municipalities will share equally with the provincial government and the federal government.

I am saddened to think that the Minister of Government Services would try to bring federal politics into the Ontario Legislature, as he and the member for Middlesex obviously did the other night when I wasn’t here. They got up and condemned the federal government. I believe they had something to say about the federal member, Larry Condon. I believe some reference was made to Judd Buchanan.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, on a point of personal privilege: I did not refer to the local member. I did not criticize the federal government. I explained the actual facts, on which you have documentation. At no time did I criticize the minister or the local member. I never mentioned the local member’s name.

Mr. Riddell: If that’s the case, I must apologize to the minister. I must read Hansard. There must have been some reason for my colleague, who is the critic for this particular ministry, to get up on his feet and indicate that it appeared as though we were fighting the federal election in this particular chamber.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In response to the honourable member, I don’t think those remarks were directed at the minister.

Mr. Riddell: If that’s the case, I still hold the minister in the same respect I did before. I guess I can’t say the same for the member for Middlesex, if indeed he was the one who tried to bring federal politics into the Ontario Legislature.

I was going to retaliate, Mr. Minister, by saying we know that you are personally carrying a member by the name of Sid Fraleigh on your shoulders. He happens to be the opposition to Larry Condon, the federal member. We know this, but we’ll let it go at that. If you didn’t bring federal politics in here I won’t have any more to say about that.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, let the record show that he did say “the federal member”; not until after May 22.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I’m not going on further, other than to say that the municipality of Middlesex is assured of the $800,000 which the federal government apparently committed itself to from the very beginning. I hope that sets the minister’s mind at ease. I hope that sets the mind of the member for Middlesex at case. I know it has set the minds of those on the municipality of Middlesex county council at ease. I would just like to say -- and I think you’ll see it in the London Free Press tonight, Mr. Minister -- that the federal government member, Larry Condon, has assured the council that the $800,000 will be forthcoming. So I expect that the provincial government will live up to its commitment of $800,000 and that will leave the municipality with the $600,000 renovation fund for its share.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In response to the honourable member, I really appreciate knowing that there has been a definite clarification of the federal government’s position. When we were debating this Tuesday night I read portions of letters. I don’t think I misread the letter from the federal government, a copy of which I have given you; dated, I believe, August 1977. I am sorry I don’t have that file with me. I had it out in the east lobby an hour ago not realizing we would be going back to it this afternoon.

The other night I read the bottom portion of page one of the letter of August 1977, and if you would look at it you will note item (a) said 50-50 sharing with the province. Item (b) suggested one third, one third, one third.

If you go over to the top of page two, it definitely makes it clear the title would have to be vested in the county or the local municipality. I am not sure if it said the city of London, but it did refer to the local municipality.

The difference in the most recent letter pointed out that in 1977 the architect’s estimate was $2,200,000. The estimate from which the Ministry of Government Services was working last October was that of the architect hired by Middlesex county. That was $1,600,000 for refurbishing. I don’t have the architect’s report of $2,200,000 for the refurbishing in 1977.

I want to thank the honourable member for giving me the assurance the government of Canada is accepting the proposal that I put in my letter of October 1978 when I suggested the province put up $800,000, providing the federal government put up $800,000, making a total of $1,600,000; and providing the county of Middlesex would complete the job at an estimated cost of $600,000. I just want to thank him for giving the House that assurance. I can assure you we are ready. Our $800,000 is in the vote to use when we have an opportunity.

Mr. Grande: I really have very few questions for the minister. Some of them relate to the Welcome House which the minister mentioned at the beginning of the estimates. As we have just come from the estimates of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation where we heard the decision was made to turn over the facility on University and Dundas, I wonder if the minister could let us know how long have these negotiations been going on between the Ministry of Culture and Recreation and his ministry about the movement of Welcome House from the present location on York to the future location on University and Dundas?

As the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) is next to the minister, I guess he can also fill him in on that information.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In response to the honourable member, I don’t have the actual request here, but it came from the Minister of Culture and Recreation about three weeks ago. I can’t say whether the same request came to me from the Premier (Mr. Davis) or not, but the Premier was well aware the Minister of Culture and Recreation had requested it.

I want to go a step further and inform the honourable member that in the present process of government, once the decision has been made it has to go before Management Board for approval, and from there back to cabinet. That part hasn’t been done. So in the last three weeks we have agreed to do it but the final approvals are not completed.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Chairman, what I want to find out from the minister is an idea of what goes on in the decision-making process. We heard from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation in its estimates that discussions have been going on for the movement of Welcome House since 1976, two years back. I’m just wondering, why did it take two years for that decision to come to fruition? Were there any other plans your ministry had for that particular building at University Avenue and Dundas Street?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, in response to the honourable member, I am sure he realizes that the staffs of the two different departments certainly meet. But once they come to an arrangement it’s at that stage that they come to the minister to get the necessary approvals. Now I can’t answer whether or not my staff negotiated -- I can find it out for you. Standing here as the minister I would say that our staff and Culture and Recreation have been negotiating, but from my position it was three weeks ago.

Mr. Grande: This obviously does not contradict the letter that we discussed in Culture and Recreation estimates from the Premier to the Minister of Culture and Recreation dated February 27. In essence, as far as I am concerned it issues a pretty stem order to both the Minister of Culture and Recreation and to the Minister of Government Services that that building at 454 University Avenue should be turned over to the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Let me leave it at that. It is obvious and it is confirmed then that until the Premier stepped in, Welcome House was to stay on York Street. The Premier stepped in through a letter to the Minister of Culture and Recreation and it says at the bottom of that letter: “I’m sure if you decide to do this, Lorne Henderson and his deputy John Thatcher will co-operate in every possible way.” That is dated February 27 and I guess it coincides very well with what you said in terms of the decision being made three weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: If it was five weeks ago -- you know how quickly time goes by when you’re busy. I’m trying to answer you off the cuff -- I don’t have the file here -- from my memory of it. I haven’t been informed. I was told once that there was charges made towards me but I haven’t had time to see what the charges were. I’m sitting here and I don’t know what your committee learned.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Minister, all I wanted to do was to confirm that when the decision was made from your particular ministry, it was made at the same time as the Premier ordered that decision to be made. Not before and not after. That confirms some of the thoughts I have on that matter. For the time being I am satisfied with those answers that you’ve given me, in other words.

The next area is in regard to the approximately $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 grant -- I don’t know whether it’s a grant or not, but anyway it’s about the $3,000,000 to $4,- 000,000 that went from the Ministry of Government Services over to the Villa Colombo complex at Dufferin and Lawrence. It’s about a year and a half ago.

At that particular time they were trying to buy the approximately 12 acres of land and facilities adjacent to Columbus House or the Villa Colombo. They did not have the money to pay -- I don’t remember exactly how much it was. For some mysterious reason the Ministry of Government Services got involved and coughed up between $3,000,000 and $4,000,000 so that purchase could be made. I just want to find out how the ministry entered that picture, and I would like the minister to tell me a little bit of the background in terms of how his ministry related to Villa Colombo.

[5:15]

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Again, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to respond off the cuff; I don’t have that file here. Before I became Minister of Government Services, I was chairman of cabinet, and I well remember cabinet approving the purchase of this property. The local people did not have the money; so cabinet authorized the minister at that time -- and the member will understand that I am speaking off the cuff from my memory of what happened in cabinet with another ministry.

We authorized the Ministry of Government Services to purchase this property. My memory tells me the price was $2,000,000; I trust the member will take it as that -- we can get the actual figure, but I hope he will accept it the way I am telling it because he will realize that, not being the minister, I could make a slipup there.

At the moment, we are in the midst of selling that property to that body of people. We don’t want to make any profit in selling it to the club. I don’t have all the facts to assure the member that it’s at the cost, less or more, but as minister I would hope that the price would be what it cost us. We think we were of service and help to the club.

Mr. Grande: All I am trying to find out is how the Ministry of Government Services got involved in that transaction. It’s very strange to me that a particular group or community would come to the ministry and say: “Look, we are $3,000,000 short” -- and if my memory serves me correctly, it is $3,400,000 -- that all a group has to do is come before the ministry and say: “We are $3,400,000 short. Would Government Services buy this particular building for us?” Does the ministry do that with every other group in this province? Is it customary that the government does that as a policy?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: As I said, I am speaking of something that happened about two years ago now, I think. I was chairman of cabinet at the time; so I remember it. The Minister of Government Services at that time -- I believe it was John Smith from Hamilton --

Mr. B. Newman: A fine fellow.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes. I believe he was the minister who came to cabinet and suggested the purchase of this parcel of property for so much money -- the member says $3,400,000; I will accept that. The minister recommended that we purchase Villa Colombo because it was for sale; we would purchase it outright. He hoped that Government Services would hold it and, if these people came back -- and he suggested a time limit to us; I don’t have the overall thing -- the government would offer it back to them at the time they felt they could afford to buy it. The member says it was $3,400,000. I will accept that. I thought it was $2,000,000. I haven’t looked into it recently, and I don’t have the file in front of me.

Mr. Grande: Would the minister undertake to take a look at that particular file and get the details? Perhaps before these estimates are over, we can come back to that, perhaps under another item. I am not familiar with this minister’s estimates, nor am I familiar with the votes, but perhaps we will find another time when we can come in and the minister can give us that information.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I will try to speak to that item when we go on with the estimates tomorrow morning. I am advised that it comes under vote 502, item 5.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I notice in the report of the design and construction program for 1979-80 that the former Sprucedale School site at Hagersville is slated for demolition. I was wondering what the minister has to say about that.

I know it was drawn to the attention of the city of Nanticoke and the region of Haldimand-Norfolk that this property was available. There is a good swimming pool located on the site. I realize the buildings are an old air force base going back to the 1940s and many of the buildings are old, but there is a good heating system, and water and sewage services are available and in working order at the present time. It has been vacant since the winter of 1977-78, I believe. I wonder what plans the minister has for that, and if the area municipalities will be given an opportunity of making use of that land?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Before the minister answers, I would remind the member that that question is rather a specific item which might best be dealt with somewhere else in these votes rather than a general policy matter. The question has been asked, and a great deal of latitude has been given on matters earlier, so I will ask the minister to respond. But we have been on these estimates for some time and we are still on vote 501; in fairness to the members who may be reserving their questions for a particular vote I think I should perhaps be ruling a little more sternly than I have on these matters. Perhaps you could answer that, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a little bit more information. I am really not familiar with that one. It is the Sprucedale School at Hagersville; formerly occupied by Community and Social Services, right?

Mr. G. I. Miller: Yes. I think it is on page 36 that it indicates it is slated for demolition. It was my understanding the buildings were going to be removed and I wondered if there was any interest from the region of Haldimand-Norfolk or the city of Nanticoke.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Can the minister remember to raise that when we come to that specific vote?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: One or two seconds here. The Ministry of Community and Social Services have a consultant reviewing the property for that ministry to see if they have future use for it, or to bring in proposals for using it. At this moment it is still under their jurisdiction. Until we get the report we are not in a position to answer your question as directly as I would like to be able to answer it.

Mr. C. I. Miller: I wonder when a decision will be made. Is there any deadline or any time element there? It has been sitting there now for one year. Again I would like to point out there is a good swimming pool there and there is a good heating system. I would assume it is going to be put in mothballs. I know there are many municipalities in my riding, and probably elsewhere in Ontario, that would like to have access to a swimming pool of that type. So my concern is that it should be utilized and made available to the public.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We didn’t hire the consultants, but it is our understanding they hope to report by the end of May. We can’t say positively, but that is what we are told from the other ministry, that we should have something by the end of May.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member for Riverdale on a policy matter.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am in your hands. I wanted to raise a specific question about the ministry’s position with respect to the conflicting interests in the old Don Jail property.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Proceed; in view of the fact everybody else has had a great deal of latitude to this point I don’t want to come down on the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t mind if you do; I just would like to know the appropriate place to raise it. If now is the time it would be --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All right, the minister is prepared to deal with it now.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Can we have a vote on that now; to come down on the member for Riverdale?

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Proceed.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Minister, my inquiry is simply for the purpose of trying to get some clarification and not to confuse an otherwise already confused issue. The interests involved are the Ministry of Correctional Services, the Riverdale Hospital and the Toronto Humane Society. it is interesting that of the two aldermen for the city of Toronto representing ward seven, one of them sits on the board of the Toronto Humane Society and the other one sits on the board of the Riverdale Hospital.

I have had some correspondence with the executive director of both the Riverdale Hospital and the humane society about their positions in connection with it. Perhaps the easiest way would be simply to ask the minister where the matter now stands, then in the light of any comment he wants to make I can decide whether I need to pursue it further now.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to answer this question. I have spent a great deal of time on this particular project. Members will note I did not have to consult staff on my position on it.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Would you want to answer it now?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That is right. I felt the question would give me a golden opportunity. The Don Jail, as you know, was offered to the humane society and tentatively accepted.

At the same time, the Minister of Culture and Recreation assured them $1,000,000 for the restoration of the Don Jail. Everything was going along quite well until a Mr. Tom Wardle, who is the chairman of the Riverdale Hospital board and a former member of this House -- I use his name because we all know Tom quite well -- he and the executive director and another member of the board approached me a few months ago and told me the plan of the hospital. Their real concern at that time was we were working on an agreement with the humane society which would take up the next 99 years. You can understand the concern of the hospital board on this land across the road from them which they felt they needed for future expansion.

Immediately after I met with the board I sent my architects to see if all bodies could be satisfied and if there was sufficient property. I will approach it this way: On examination of the Don Jail the property, on one side is a parking lot; the Ministry of Correctional Services requires that. As you view the site from the front, the left hand side is what the Riverdale Hospital would require, along with a portion of the front of it. They would need more than that, but the expansion they have in mind for the next 25 years would take a portion of it. As we look more deeply into it, Correctional Services needs an exercise yard for outdoor recreation.

Here we are with a piece of property of which Correctional Services needs maybe three quarters; the hospital needs about one fifth; and the remainder would be left for the humane society. The humane society is pretty well convinced, and I am too, that the portion left would not meet their needs.

Three public bodies, all serving a useful purpose, want a portion of the property. The Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Walker), the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) and myself -- the four of us -- have had two meetings. We have sized it up in all ways, shapes and forms. We are not in a position yet to state one body or another body will have it.

[5:30]

Our position is this: We are convinced we have to help the three bodies and satisfy the humane society. We’ve made a pledge to them and we’ve got to satisfy them first. Correctional Services have to be satisfied. I won’t guarantee it, but I’m hopeful that when we come to a conclusion we will be able to satisfy the need of the hospital board. We might not satisfy their desire; their desire would he that they get the complete property, that’s the way they left it with me.

We can’t let them have the complete property. They don’t have any approvals from the Ministry of Health for additional hospital growth, but I believe they do have money from other sources and they want to do some building there that doesn’t involve the province.

I can’t answer the honourable member yet. The ministers have met and we are mulling over ideas. We haven’t really come to a full conclusion, but we’re hoping to satisfy all three bodies.

Let me change that “satisfy”. We are hoping to meet the needs of the hospital. We’re not going to try to give the hospital half the property as they would have liked, but we hope to be able to work out a method so they will get sufficient land for the development they propose.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, can the minister give any indication when the problem will be resolved? Does he really think all parties can be satisfied: given the relatively small piece of property involved; the significant interest now in restoring and preserving the exterior of the old jail building, the interests, as he has stated them, of the Ministry of Correctional Services with respect to parking and the exercise yard; the extension of the hospital services over a period of time with the funds which the hospital has and with their long term plans; and the relative urgency of the Toronto Humane Society’s need because of the expropriation of the property by the government along Wellesley Street and the purchase --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Let me correct that, Mr. Chairman. The government did not expropriate the Wellesley Street property. We had a willing seller and the government bought it for $1,000,000 in 1973.

Mr. Renwick: That’s fine, I’m sorry; but it’s all part of the acquisition by the government of that property. The humane society then bought the property down on River Street and as we thought were going to proceed with their new premises on River Street. At that point the Don Jail question came up and they entered into negotiations with the ministry, which appeared to indicate that, subject to terms being worked out, there would be a 99-year lease for the premises.

The hospital board members, I think, felt themselves caught unawares by the interest of both the executive committee of city council and of the humane society; they felt they should have been consulted. When they -- “intervened” is probably too harsh a term -- when they let their interest be known there was some concern to try to work out an amicable arrangement amongst all three of the interests involved.

Does the minister really think it’s possible to work out a plan that will meet those three interests?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would prefer not to go into what my thoughts are until I have an opportunity to speak with the humane society and the hospital board, but yes I think they will all be satisfied.

My friend on my right says happy. There’s no way you can make three people overjoyed, but I think they will all be satisfied. We have not gone back to them, because there are some minor details between the ministers that we want to satisfy ourselves on.

Mr. Renwick: I suppose there is no question that it’s the intention of the ministry that the lessees, presumably -- whoever they are -- of that property, from the government will, as a condition of whatever arrangements are made, maintain the exterior of the old jail building and proceed to renovate and use the interior of the building. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, the plan is that the building as such would be preserved. There are some jail walls and one small building that will have to be removed to satisfy the needs of the hospital. When you’re facing the jail, there’s a wall to the left that will have to be removed; it’s not part of the building.

Mr. Renwick: Standing on Gerrard Street and facing north, the old building will still remain there, with whatever adjustments have to be made?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: If our proposal is accepted by all ministries that will happen; it will be maintained.

Mr. Renwick: Just a couple of more questions. I certainly don’t want to upset any of these private discussions the minister is having either with his colleagues or with others. But in fact is the minister now in discussions with both the Toronto Humane Society and the hospital and his colleague in Correctional Services about the resolution of the problem? Or are these discussions about his proposed plan a matter within the government at the present time which in due course will be conveyed to the hospital and to the humane society as a proposal?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We ministers have worked out what we feel will be satisfactory. But the legwork for us is not completed yet. Once we get it completed and think it will be acceptable to all three bodies, we will contact the humane society and the hospital board and we’ll put it on the table for them before we take the necessary action.

Mr. Renwick: How long do you anticipate the balance of this work will take?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I would like to say to the member for Riverdale that the minister and I might get it finalized either next week or the following week. But, to be fair, we’ll try to get the message back to them within a month. We’re close to finalization.

Mr. Renwick: That’s what I wanted to get a sense of. The minister is saying that, by the end of May the proposal would be put forward to the private bodies?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes. I would hope that by the end of May we could come back into the House with the proposal and that we will have conveyed that to the local bodies. But there are two or three things we’re not satisfied with. We ministers hope to get our problems ironed out within the next week to two weeks.

Mr. Renwick: Just a final remark: Perhaps the minister would be good enough -- to the extent possible in a busy schedule -- to keep me advised of what progress is being made and to let me know about the matter. While it’s not strictly within the riding of Riverdale, being across the street -- it used to be, and on any proper redistribution will be back in Riverdale -- I have a very real interest on behalf of the people in the area as to just what does happen to that property.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member could be helpful to me if he would put forth a proposal of his priorities.

Mr. Renwick: I don’t have any specific position. I recognize the needs of the Toronto Humane Society, and I recognize the needs of the Riverdale Hospital. I’m not an expert who can make up his mind as to whether there’s any incompatibility between the purposes of the humane society and the purposes of the hospital, so far as the care of people on the one hand and the care of animals on the other hand are concerned. I don’t know whether there’s a basic incompatibility that can’t be resolved there.

I would assume at some point the remnants of the jail property will likely be moved so there will be more property available at some time, although it may always remain as a staging jail for the purposes of the courts in the old city hall.

I do have one concern. I’m on the side of those who believe the old structure should be maintained and restored. I was concerned when the original intention was expressed that it had so many odious recollections involved it should be demolished. I had that view about the old hospital at 999 Queen Street, but I don’t share the same view about the building there, perhaps for reasons that my grandfather and father used to deliver the groceries to the old Don Jail. I, fortunately, have never had occasion to be inside those premises myself.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We will be very happy to inform the member. I would want to thank him for his remarks and his concern about the building, about the property and about the hospital.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, to the minister, I’d like to go back for a moment to the item raised by the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) in relation to the Italian-Canadian Benevolent Corporation. As the minister stated previously, it seems that under vote 502 the minister is going to provide the information which was requested by my colleague. In doing so, I would like to ask the minister if, under the same vote, he will table a full disclosure of the transaction between the government and the Italian-Canadian Benevolent Corporation?

Also, I would like to ask the minister -- if he doesn’t have the answer I’ll wait until full discussion under vote 502 -- if under the transaction there is any particular clause which guarantees that if the corporation chooses to buy the land they will be prevented from selling it to private individuals, companies or other people outside of the corporation. The reason I would like to have this information is to determine if the province, the minister or this government were assured at the time the transaction took place that the land to be transformed to the Italian-Canadian Benevolent Corporation will be used in the future for the benefit of the Italian community as a whole. If the minister has such information, I’ll wait until vote 502 is dealt with.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: When we deal with vote 502 I will have the documentation here to answer the question. I don’t have it here now.

Mr. Grande: My intent in raising this now is that the you table that documentation ahead of time so that at the time the vote comes up we could have a discussion? Would you table that?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: You realize how much time I’ve got left on my estimates. I would expect we will be in that vote tomorrow morning and I will have it with me tomorrow morning. I don’t know how I can table it ahead of time.

Mr. Grande: Just send it to us.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I will have it with me tomorrow morning.

[5:45]

Mr. Makarchuk: I notice that the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Wiseman) comes under your ministry. I have had some dealings with a previous Minister without Portfolio in Brantford who is currently selling licence plates. Would you kindly outline to us just exactly what you are spending $145,000 for, what are the duties and functions of the present Minister without Portfolio, and what has he been performing?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I had hoped I would be asked this question. Last week I asked the Minister without Portfolio to outline for me his interpretation of his duties. I also asked if he would be available if you people wished him to be, and he will be available.

I have a letter dated March 29, 1979, addressed to the Honourable Lorne Henderson, Minister of Government Services. It is about the duties of the Minister without Portfolio. It says: “Firstly, he is chairman of the regulations committee which meets two hours at least every week. He sits on the legislation committee, chaired by the Honourable Lorne Henderson, which meets twice per week, sometimes sitting from four to five hours per week.”

“We meet every Monday afternoon at 3:30 and we go on through to six or 6:30 or seven o’clock. If we don’t get our work wound up on that day we come back Tuesday afternoon for a similar session.

“He sits on the Board of Internal Economy, which meets every week or every second week. A meeting usually lasts three hours. Plus there is preparation for all the foregoing committees.

“Tuesday at 8 a.m., (he is at) Management Board (which is) usually going through until 12 noon. This varies when the estimates are going through. (The) sitting (is) two or three times a week or whenever necessary. Wednesday, (is) cabinet.”

Cabinet meets each Wednesday morning at 9:30 and the odd day. Yesterday the Premier (Mr. Davis) was out of town and we didn’t deal with policy but just with regular business. We were through at 11 o’clock. But the usual Wednesday meeting is from 2:30 to four.

“(On) Thursday, he sits on the justice policy field for approximately two or three hours.” He does see delegations. “(He is) chairman of the agency review committee. This committee meets with the Clerk, the secretary of the committee, as well as with the committee members and staff. Time of the meetings varies according to the availability of members, et cetera.

“(He fulfils) speaking engagements for ministers when they are unable to attend.”

Here is the main one: “Looking after constituents and being in the Legislature.”

Mr. Bradley: How much money does he get?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Whip is after him every day because he’s not in the Legislature. Then it says: “(He fulfils) regular duties that any member has regarding constituents.”

That’s the letter. It’s signed by the Honourable Douglas J. Wiseman, Minister without Portfolio.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, after listening to that recital of rather onerous duties, I wonder what is the difference. Each member sits on committees. We have our members who sit on the Board of Internal Economy. We have our members who are part of the justice policy committee and other committees and everything else. These are the normal duties that members perform.

There is absolutely nothing in the list you read that is any different from what the ordinary member performs in this House. Yet it is costing the government $145,000. I don’t know whether that includes the car and chauffeur or not or whether that’s an added cost.

It seems to me this is a waste of money. For $145,000 you’re not getting your money’s worth. Probably it should be something the provincial auditor should investigate. After all, he has been empowered by the new Audit Act to see if we’re getting value for our money. What the minister has read out are exactly the duties of a member. In fact they’re less than the duties of a member because he has more assistance and more help in his office, than a member has with the limited supply of assistance he has at this time.

I want to know who directs him. Who tells him what to do if there are any duties? Does the direction come from you or from the Premier or the cabinet or from whom? Where does the direction come from?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I would have to disagree with the honourable member’s remarks. Firstly, committees of cabinet are set up by cabinet.

Mr. Makarchuk: Just like committees of caucus are set up by caucus. That also is a profound statement.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Again, I would have to disagree with the honourable member. Management Board has certain responsibilities. The hoard meets, as he suggested, every Tuesday morning and generally goes through to noon. The Board of Internal Economy, as he knows, is appointed by order in council. The chairman of the regulations committee is appointed by cabinet. The chairman of the committee looking into regulations again is an appointment of cabinet.

The justice policy field meets every Thursday morning. I sat on the justice policy field, but it was for only two or three months. The resources policy field, as I remember, used to meet at nine o’clock Thursday morning.

Mr. McClellan: Where?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: They meet now over in the Whitney Block; the three policy fields all meet over there.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s not the one in the Park Plaza?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No. No justice policy field meets at the Park Plaza.

The three boards all meet Thursday morning. I don’t sit on any of the three --

Mr. Makarchuk: We meet Thursday morning in public accounts.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Okay; so the committee meets while the House is sitting Thursday morning.

Mr. Makarchuk: No, it doesn’t sit Thursday morning.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, but while the House is in session.

Mr. Breaugh: Which one meets at La Scala?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That, I understand, is a very important committee.

Mr. Breaugh: Which one is that?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It is the committee that keeps the body going.

Mr. Breaugh: Whose body?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Whichever person might be there.

Mr. Makarchuk: Are they warm bodies?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The member would have to be there at the right time to know.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, basically what the minister is saying is that be goes to meetings. If you ask any member, they all go to meetings. Everybody has meetings Monday mornings, Tuesday mornings, Wednesday mornings, and Thursday mornings; some of us meet on Saturday mornings and some Saturday afternoons, and some of us have meetings on other days. I am sure he has meetings out there.

What I am trying to point out is that what he does is nothing out of the ordinary from what every other member does. What bothers me about this is that we are spending an extra $145,000 for this person who goes to a meeting. That’s great. But what does he contribute? I have never seen anything. We spend $145,000 to set up a whole complex up there, and I can’t see any results. I can’t see any advantages.

I don’t see any difference between him and a member who gets a normal salary and does not cost an extra $145,000 to be able to attend meetings. Unless we give him some specific responsibilities that are visible and put him in a position to make some decisions et cetera, I suggest it might be an idea for this government to abandon that position.

Does the minister remember Dick Beckett? He used to be Minister without Portfolio from the city of Brantford. The citizens of Brantford used to wonder what he did; they wondered for so long that, when he ran for re-election, he came third. I think that is a reflection.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That was the member’s fault.

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes, it was my fault; no question about it. I made sure. But that is a reflection on the magnitude of the office of Minister without Portfolio.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister about his policy on temporary employees filling in when extra help is needed for short periods. I understand the government did set up its own temporary employment agency called GO Temp and it has people on call for that agency. In addition, I understand it also uses some private temporary employee agencies.

I would like to know how much was spent in the last year on the private temporary employee agencies and bow much was spent on GO Temp in the three categories of stenographic help, clerical help and data processing and keypunch help. I have the feeling it may be that the government is using private employment agencies as part of its effort to appear to be keeping the civil service down in numbers.

The private employment agencies’ charges do not show up as salaries for civil servants but they certainly cost the government at least as much, and probably more, than if it hired its own GO Temp employees for all these temporary jobs. Obviously, the private employment agency has to take a profit out of the fee paid for supplying temporary help.

I’d like to know how much was spent in the last year on GO Temp and how much was spent on private employment agencies? What are the plans for this coming year for using the outside temporary employment agencies?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, firstly in response to the honourable member, we are not aware of any other agency. We want to qualify it when we say that, since there may have been a director or somebody who was in a real bind for a day. We use GO Temp on a regular basis, that’s one usual source of extra help. Standing here, I’m not aware any other agency was used. My staff will try and find nut for the next sitting of the committee; but at this moment, to the best of our knowledge there was no outside agency used. We admit there may have been one or two occasions, but we’re not aware of it here. It’s not our practice anyhow. We do use GO Temp.

Ms. Bryden: That’s good news, Mr. Minister. I did have one person who was on GO Temp staff, in the data processing field, who reported that she understood when she was available work was given to an outside private employment agency in this field of data processing. She felt she should have been called instead.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That helps us when you tell us it was in our data processing department.

Vote 501 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. McCague, the committee of supply reported a certain resolution.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.